< 13 June	15 June >

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the relevant inclusion criteria, are unpersuasive and/or are made by WP:SPAs; see also this AfD's talk page. Sandstein 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestris[edit]

Administrators: see closure discussion/comment on talk page

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

No indication of WP:notability. Article creator appears to have a WP:conflict of interest. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing non-trivial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it does seem to be relatively widely used Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Google coverage is sparse.noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support for multiple languages is very new, so it is supposed to be widely used now because of its features. Genealogy hobbyists will have the information.

should be kept, as it seems to be a good information for genealogy hobbyists as it certainly one of the very few programs compliant 100% with the gedcom standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.19.133 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:notability, WP:reliable sources and WP:verifiability and explain how this meets the criteria. noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment third party sources are given in the external links and are independant from the software itself (which is an open source software). notability tested and approved as one of the best genealogy softwares so we have a significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the software. Other reliable sources are given with the external links which have nothing to do with the software nor the authors and tested it. Verifiability is given by the elements above.

Comment Wikis, newsnet archives and directories - All show it exists, but are not WP:reliable sources and do not establish WP:notability.noq (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the guidelines : "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online". The links given give the appropriate criteria to be considered as a reliable source, as they come from third parties totally independant from the project itself.

Comment The guidelines require reliable independent sources - wikis, forums and newsnet fail as they have no editorial oversight. noq (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FranceGenWeb, link given in the article is not a wiki, nor a forum, nor newsnet. FranceGenWeb is an independent association of any public or private non-profit, governed by the law of 1 July 1901, and the decree of August 16, 1901.

Comment But it is just a directory listing. There does not seem to be any significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They talk about software, not a great philosophical question, so the way they talk about software can hardly be done in a different manner from the one made by the links provided. Just look at the other pages of wikipedia on similar softwares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.48.53 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here. While I am sure you can find examples of other non notable software that has managed to get an article it does not mean this should exist. And there are also examples of software with good references - magazine and newspaper articles etc. Wikipedia notability guidelines still apply to software and these sources are not sufficient to establish notability. noq (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You didn't read what he wrote. Ancestris page gives you information and links that describe the software. He said if you take a look to the articles on wikipedia dedicated to genealogy softwares, you have links that describe the softwares the same way. So what have been considerated as reliable for them must be considerated the same way for Ancestris. Lots of comments for an article that just gives good information for wikipedia readers.78.250.179.152 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read what it said and replied to that. You are arguing this should be ok because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said before, there are lots of poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia and the existence of those does not mean that if a poorly sourced article uses something as a source it becomes a relable source. We need [[WP:reliable sources][ to establish WP:notability. Not your opinion that it is useful information. I am also curious why so many anonymous userss who do not seem to have edited Wikipedia before seem so interested in a piece of software with little coverage in google - How did you find out about it and what brought you to this page?noq (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know about the previous guy, but I'm the one who wrote the reply before. Funny to see now that you mention Google to estimate the coverage. IMHO there is no valid arguments on your side to go on with that discussion, so if you want the last word go ahead, on my side it's over.82.250.48.53 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that WikiPedia pages had to give some verifiable, valuable and usefull information to a a given audiance. I think that this page complies with those three requirements for thoses interested in genealogy in general. I didn't know that a piece of software with little coverage in google should not be brought to the attention of those persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.218.137 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia articles have to be WP:notable with WP:reliable sources for WP:verifiability. Useful to some audience is too vague an idea. WP:NOT goes into more detail about some things that may be useful but are not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to bring attention to something - the notability guidelines require the attention to be there before being on Wikipedia instead of using Wikipedia to get that attention - see WP:SPAM noq (talk)

Comment Good point noq : Wikipedia articles have to be WP:notable with WP:reliable sources for WP:verifiability.
WP:notable : notability guideline : Significant coverage : We have with the info given by the article and the links a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject. The links given don't point to the software web site, and are totally independant from the software itself. No original research are needed. Reliable: those sources have a total editorial integrity. Sources: the ones given are secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. That's the case, as you have documents or recordings that relate an information presented elsewhere (elsewhere could be the ancestris web site). Independant of the subject: those links are not works produced by the persons affiliated with Ancestris nor its creators. Presumed, doesn't need an explanation, as it's a software dedicated to genealogy.
WP:reliable sources: In the article, you have the software itself, so as Wikipedia says, the "work itself", the creator of the work, and the publisher, the web site. You said yourself that you saw this software exist as it is mentionned on many web sites, and magazines.
WP:verifiability: Easy, go to Ancestris web site, you will see, it's really a genealogy program, which works on the gedcom data, which works on Linux, Windows, and MacOs, which is free, which is Open Source, which is available in 7 languages, etc... 78.250.174.7 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material - is the entire part of the notability guideline. Notice the bit about address the subject directly in detail and more than a trivial mention. None of the sources given so far meet those criteria that I can see. Just assertions that the coverage is significant even when the reference is just to a directory listing. noq (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, "No original research", means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. So here, the material added to the article are clearly attributable to a reliable source. Significant coverage doesn't mean that sources are to be an handbook nor a copy/paste thingy.Arvernes56 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No claim has been made that this is original research nor that significant coverage means a handbook - Significant coverage does require more than a mere mention. As the notability guidelines say they must address the subject directly in detail. Which are the reliable sources that give significant coverage? bear in mind that your own website cannot be used to establish notability. We need something that talks about it in some detail - not a manual page, not a directory listing, not another wiki, not a forum post. noq (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should be kept The development of ancestris seems to be quite active (http://www.mail-archive.com/ancestris@ml.arvernes.com/index.html) and promising in the multiplatform genealogical data collection and reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.122.47 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC) rpy[reply]

Comment How active it is is not relevant to its notability. noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should be kept I came to this entry via Comparison_of_genealogy_software. It's interesting noq that you want this entry gone and not GenealogyJ. Why not just get rid of them all? Then I wouldn't have come to Wikipedia in the first place, via Google. It's software. They're French. They beg for translation on their site to English. Go pick on something else, or get rid of all of it. That flag at the top of the article is annoying to a normal potential end-user. In fact, I think I'm going to go let Google know what I think about seeing Wikipedia in their search results, i.e., don't waste my time showing me links to their content. Ciao.

Comment I had not come across GenealogyJ but I would refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am puzzled why you think google should not list something because people are trying to ensure that what they link to is notable. Note that this is not the same as exists - Wikipedia has guidelines as to what shold exist, although due to the number of new articles that are created every day some inevitably get past new page patrol, Again I note that this is the first post to Wikipedia from your IP address - just like the majority of keep !votes so far and the reasons it was nominated for deletion have still not been addressed.noq (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Noq. I'm the one who wrote that article. You got many good reasons from those people to keep that article. Now if you don't want to understand, there is nothing we can do. But may be you will find that the last stuff added by someone as an external links gives the requirements you asked for. It gives a reliable source and establish notability. Thank.Arvernes56 (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean the link to a page that has a link to your site in a list of programs. Hardly significant coverage. noq (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now I have added a magazine as a reliable source.78.250.174.7 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its another directory entry - not an article about Ancestris. It just shows it exists. noq (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't believe it. You must have a problem with that program. I read WP:AfD. Maybe you should reread it. Lots of links, sources, explainations were given to you, and you're unable to change your mind. We gave more sources than for most genealogy programs mentionned on Wikipedia, and it's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSthingy. The articles related to those programs were verified by people against the guidelines. They are acceptable of course. And for that article related to Ancestris, it is not. No sense. You're supposed to find a consensus, aren't you. All those people are saying : this article is acceptable. Wikipedia is not yours, it is made for everybody. This article gives good information about a software, it must be kept.78.250.174.7 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found Ancestris through Wikipedia and I appreciate it very much as the genealogy software that most closely follows on the open and free route of wikipedia. Most users are not know and there is no commercial company behind to make a heavy advertisement. So there may not be yet many publicity for this very good tool. --npettiaux (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives a good addition to the free genealogy softwares already described in Wikipedia. 82.250.201.182 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the topic! I look the content of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_genealogy_software

I'm surprise of your request! Ancestris's page is correct comparison other software's page! You can't delete this page on your standard without delete all other page. Something else Ancestris is one of the fews genealogical softwares who respect really the GedCom standard! Else Ancestris can works on all platform's OS. Else It's rare Java's software in genealogy. Delete this page is a big mistake for all persons. It's a good page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig38 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per noq, the lack of third party sources, no claim of significance. I'll also note that all 5 of the keep !votes above me are more or less SPAs. The exception is perhaps Npettiaux.--v/r - T P 23:15, 23 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-edge Pop[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Bus stop (nomination partially completed). The issue here might be either tone or being a neologism, not sure. I am neutral. Raymie (t • c) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator made this comment on the talk page: "This article has virtually no sources. I can find few references (online) to the topic of "Soft-edge Pop". The article communicates very little—I find the writing undecipherable. Deletion might be a good option."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Raymie (t • c) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Raymie. I goofed up the process of nominating the article for deletion. I guess I'm not perfect after all. I can find nothing of substance in the article Soft-edge Pop. It seems to me to be a joke. I'd be interested to see if anybody else finds value in it. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little more research shows that the article's creation was the only work of User:Sciannik. It was pretty large for a new article right out of the gate, too. Raymie (t • c) 23:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I did add imagery and some copyedit work back in January and there are a couple of references, the article seems to be WP:OR and basically stale...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's sad to see this article go, it's a good read, but consists of mostly original research by the look of things. I attempted to find references to Soft-Edge Pop on various news sites and art journals, and then searched for the artists mentioned in the article and attempted to find any reputable sources classifying them as 'Soft-Edge Pop'. I came out empty. It simply doesn't exist in any mainstream media...is there any chance of this article being forwarded to an art journal or something? I don't know much about art, but this article may be worth a look-over by a profesional. Anyway, enough rambling, let WP:OR do the talking. 2birds1stone (talk) 10:47, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Fade[edit]

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

Not notable, no notability asserted, no references, No sources, not even a single Google hit other than social networking sites. Also appears to be an auto-biography Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person, unreferenced article, fails all criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). WWGB (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, vanispam. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete unreferenced BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per questionable notability. I didn't get any hits on Google and Yahoo except for a MySpace page. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:49, 19 June 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. However, I do see the nominator's point and IMHO this was not a frivolous nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Docket (court)[edit]

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

I'm seeing a lot of external links, but no significant coverage of the court docket as a concept, in reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 22:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator claiming that there's no coverage in reliable sources anywhere of Docket (court)? If needed, label it as ((stub)) and ((citation needed)). I added it to ((WikiProject Law)) where someone there might take an interest. The article needs improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator claiming that there's no coverage in reliable sources anywhere of Docket (court)? I'm claiming I can't find any, yup. And nor can you from the look of things. ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that there are no sources anywhere for a well-written article on this topic is obviously wrong. The problem for me is that I am not a subject matter expert and I am certain that a subject matter expert would create a better article that I -- which is why I added it to the relevant Wiki-project and suggested adding templates. There is WP:NOTIMELIMIT. patsw (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I'm sure there is no Wikipedia policy to support this, I know that there are sources out there. That no sources exist on the page means that the article itself needs to be improved, not deleted. Hopefully someone at ((WikiProject Law)) can provide sources, as I would imagine them to be more familiar with the subject. - SudoGhost™ 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are sources out there – classic MUSTBESOURCES. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rather, that it is a classic case of not following WP:COMMONSENSE. Sources seem to be hard to find (due to the fact that searching "court docket" and similar terms yields actual court documents), but deleting the article is the wrong path to take. Tagging it, or notifying Wikiproject:Law would be a better path. - SudoGhost™ 07:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a note, I've added one source to the article, but placed the other sources on the article's talk page, not to the article itself, because I wanted to discuss on the talk page them before inserting them into the article. - SudoGhost™ 08:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how long do you suggest we leave the article tagged before deleting it? I don't believe that there is significant coverage which is capable of being added. What is your proposed compromise? A month? Two months? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. This meets that criteria, and the other criteria of WP:GNG. - SudoGhost™ 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not available online so I can't assess it (incidentally, can/have you?) but regardless, it does not qualify as multiple reliable sources, as required by the GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it right now. Also, in addition to the one I linked above, I've added a source to the article, and did you check the talk page? There are multiple sources there. Very likely not all of them qualify for significant coverage, but there are certainly multiple sources that do, there and in addition to the one I added on the article itself. I think between those, notability has certainly been established, and if not, I'm certain more can be found. - SudoGhost™ 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's such a common legal term that it's basically impossible to do a normal search for sources - there are just too many hits to filter through. However, it is a widely used and significant legal concept, so I have no doubt that good sources are out there - perhaps some good legal histories. In the meantime, it's a valid stub and I see no good reason to delete it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to delete it. Other than the fact that nobody can provide a single example of significant coverage, presumably? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't apply to the comment you responded to. Might want to give that page a "once over" before you link it again (specifically the providing an explanation part). - SudoGhost™ 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The person has said it's notable yet has failed to provide any sources. Seems like an illegitimate argument to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources != explanation. What you linked states "asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source", not just source. Hence, WP:ITSNOTABLE does not apply. - SudoGhost™ 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's still an exceptionally poor argument and you know it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a poor argument, and that isn't what you said. Editors will WP:AGF so please don't link things that don't apply. The fact that technical limitations apply due to the pervasiveness of the term is a pretty good argument that the article will be harder to find sources for than other articles. As you didn't follow the guidelines of WP:BEGIN (specifically #10 concerning WikiProject:Law), his comment about legal histories is a good point that is most certainly something the people at WikiProject:Law would know, so "exceptionally poor argument" is invalid and unnecessary. - SudoGhost™ 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is widely used in this way in the US. It is not in Britain - the online version of the Chambers dictionary does not give this usage at all, whilst the Oxford English dictionary labels this usage as US (those are the two most widely used dictionaries of British English). There is a reasonable chance of people wanting to look it up. The information in this article is wider than I would expect to find in a dictionary and is capable of expansion, so I don't think that it can be dismissed as a dicdef. I would assume that US legal encyclopedias do define it. Should anyone care to, there will be more to be written about the historical origins (in British English a docket is a label attached to, eg, a parcel, detailing its contents) and the development of court record systems in the US. Need I go on? --AJHingston (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the process: An Afd for notablity is argues that the topic in itself should not have a Wikipedia article because no good Wikipedia article could ever be written about the topic. I and others argue that the topic has encyclopedic significance given its wide usage in the United States and numerous appearances in reliable sources. That, I would think is self-evident, hence, it is a notable topic. The current state of the article is that it ((needs citations)). That is a reason to add templates and improve the article, preferably by a subject matter expert to provide cites for the summary which now exist in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion. Impatience with the pace at which the article improves is never a good reason to delete. The Wikipedia is a work in progress. patsw (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the process. I think not. An Afd for notablity is argues [sic] that the topic in itself should not have a Wikipedia article because no good Wikipedia article could ever be written about the topic. That's what I'm suggesting. I and others argue that... Exactly: so it's disagreement on our part rather than a misunderstanding on my part. Thought so. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2.1, "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Warden (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's traditional, on Wikipedia, to provide some sort of reason when making conduct allegations of "unquestionable vandalism or disruption." It's also traditional (not to mention obligatory) to provide reasoning when commenting in a deletion discussion. But then I'm sure you know all that. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word obviously means "in a clearly perceptible manner, evidently, plainly, manifestly;". In this context, it means that the discussion should be closed speedily because the nomination is self-evidently frivolous or vexatious. The point of a speedy keep is to cut short discussion and so detailed discussion and argument is therefore contraindicated. I explain this logic on this occasion so that you understand the point being made. Naturally, you and others may disagree with my position but so it goes. Warden (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked for an explanation, I didn't mean, "Define the word obviously." I meant, what is it which identifies my nomination (which another editor supports, so your speedy-keep is now irrelevant anyway) as being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind him. He loves nothing more than to try to mischaracterize honest attempts to reduce the amount of crap on this encyclopedia as somehow disruptive or frivolous. Luckily, nobody takes much notice. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note—now that an editor other than my good self get my point, the above speedy-keep should be discounted as per WP:SK, which states that SK2 can only apply in cases where "nobody unrelated recommends deletion." ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all get your point. However, I believe those of us who disagree with you think this is a perfect time for one of those "occasional exceptions" to the notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: in fact what is 'obvious' is that this topic has no notability except in the context of a Court of law -- so this topic should be discussed in that article. This would have been a merge or redirect !vote, except for the fact that (i) this article appears to contain no material that is not either (a) WP:Synthesis or (b) an inappropriately long list of external links, and (ii) that it is an unlikely search term (all that would be needed would be for the Docket disambiguation page to link to Court of law). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of trials, bailiffs, judges, juries etc etc. You could say none of those have "notability" (I assume you mean in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word) except in the context of a court of law.--Kubigula (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could -- but with far less justification. All of those topics would appear to have significantly more, and more obviously non-trivial, WP:SECONDARY coverage than court dockets -- and so a more legitimate claim to notability. For one thing, the latter three are independent actors within the court drama (and the former, the sum total of the drama) -- as opposed to merely a listing of the acts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like a playbill :)?--Kubigula (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Half of ((WikiProject Law)) can be defined as "no notability except in the context of a Court of law". Are you suggesting that the contents of each Wikiproject be merged into one article each, since they obviously have no notability outside of the primary topic? - SudoGhost™ 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "court of law exclusion" in Wikipedia. Good articles exist on numerous legal terms like indictment, verdict, legal motions, etc.

Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state: Notability-related AFD's are an evaluation of the topic itself, not merely on the number of citations in the article and their quality as of 2011-06-15. Are Delete voters seriously suggesting that there is no content on this topic that could be summarized and cited to make a good article? So why doesn't patsw do it? As I mentioned already, I am not not a subject matter expert in this area, and a good article on a legal topic would require one. patsw (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Court of law. As it stands this article is poorly sourced, filled with synthesis, and contains way too many external links. I also think that it would improve the content to have it in one article than spread over two. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from anything else, Court of law is a broad conceptual article the title of which covers all legal systems and the whole of legal history. It is capable of expansion within that. A docket is a usage specific in time and place and so does not belong there unless it is seriously suggested that Court of law should contain a section discussing in detail how the keeping of court records had developed over time and across legal jurisdictions. All of which would be unhelpful to somebody trying to find out what a docket was now in a legal context (and don't anyone dare say that 'everyone knows') and would probably be attacked as 'Synthesis' anyway even though the bringing together of information from several sources is the essence of an encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Amidst all the blustering above it seems that nobody has even bothered to perform a simple Google Books search for "court docket" in order to be able to give an informed opinion. The first eight of the results found include these two, including an entry under that very title in a paper encyclopedia, which are enough to demonstrate notability. Anyone wanting to expand the article further can also look through the other 500 or so results. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done!. Phil, why can't you be an anyone as well? patsw (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"These two" are a couple of bare mentions and a WP:HOWTO? Hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference that is neither a "bare mention" nor a WP:HOWTO. - SudoGhost™ 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A three-quarter page encyclopedia article about this precise subject is not "a couple of bare mentions", and there is nothing wrong with using a "how-to" guide as a source - WP:NOT#HOWTO (which I presume is what you mean by the reference to the irrelevant WP:HOWTO) is a policy about how articles should be written, not about what sources can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought that the book on legal practice in Virginia was a valuable source for a second reason, because it says something about how it developed historically. As the WP article notes, legal records today are largely virtual, and the words and case law can become mysterious without an understanding of the way they developed. That is precisely the sort of thing that Wikipedia is for. I confess to being completely baffled by the deletion lobby on this one. If the original sources will exist out there, whether or not online and some of them are the physical objects themselves, then a good encyclopedic article will be possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --AJHingston (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger; sufficient sources to meet WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but remove "(Court)" qualification. Unwarranted assumptions (even made in good faith) by those unfamiliar with a subject area will often result in excessively limited, apparently even minimally responsive, search results, notwithstanding that abundant sources meeting the criteria of WP:SECONDARY exist to support a well-done, even appropriately expanded article. As limited as they will necessarily be in this subject area, internet search results can nonetheless be improved by utilizing more accurate -- as well as less limiting -- search terms. For example, historically, prior to the 19th century, dockets were usually referred to as "Docket Rolls" or "Docket Books" (and are frequently so referred to as the latter even today in formal parlance) and during the pre-early modern period in Britain, as "Doggetts".

Although dockets (or docket books) are sometimes referred to generally (and informally) as "Court Dockets," they have usually been described more specifically according to the legal specialty of the court, such as "Admiralty Dockets" or "Common Law and Equity Registers" (Bakken, Gordon Morris, and Brenda Farrington. Law in the West. (Taylor & Francis, 2001)); Bankruptcy Dockets (Earle, Peter. "The Making of the English Middle Class: Business, Society, and Family Life" (U. Calif. Press: 1989)); etc.

Docket books have been and sometimes still are used by legislative bodies such as Parliament and the U.S. Congress (Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. Advice & Dissent: the Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. (Brookings Institute Press: 2009)); or agencies or commissions of the executive branch (Grimshaw, Polly. Images of the Other: a Guide to Microform Manuscripts on Indian-White Relations. (U. Illinois Press: 1991)); etc. Dockets have been and may still be used not merely as "calendars," but as repositories of legislative votes (Binder and Maltzman, p. 41); to record liens and "for a creditor to establish a claim against an alleged bankrupt" (Earle, p. 409); historically, in Britain, to record the collection and payment of statutorily-imposed fines; as well as to record wills and the conveyance of real estate, the payment of attorneys, patents, and even "grants of ecclesiastical benefices and dignities...in the gift of the Crown". Descriptions and discussions of the varied uses of "Dockets Rolls" and "Docket Books" can be found in histories of the legal profession such as Paul A. Brand's The Origin of the English Legal Profession. (Oxford, 1986) and C.W. Brooks's Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth: The "Lower Branch" of the Legal Profession in Early Modern England (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History). (Cambridge U. Press: 2004), particularly through Chapter 4, "The Increase in Litigation," and even more particularly, in the detailed endnotes to that chapter.

Other useful and reliable secondary sources of information on the varied forms and uses of "Docket Rolls" and "Docket Books" are contemporaneous and historical reports on public archives such as the annual reports by the American Historical Association and research guides prepared by official archives, such as the U.K.'s Public Record Office (Bevan, Amanda. Tracing Your Ancestors in the Public Record Office (Issue 19 of Public Record Office Handbooks). 6th ed. Great Britain. Public Record Office). Of course, what I've listed here are only a few examples of what I was able to identify in about 5 minutes that's accessible generally on the internet, which is typically only a tiny, tiny percentage of what would be accessible to a subject matter expert under the auspices of a law library or even a less specialized academic library. Such libraries provide access to the far richer resources of proprietary databases of law journals, law reviews, etc., as well as to historical reports, guides, books and journals that aren't yet digitized.Ravinpa (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why do you suggest the disambiguator is removed? This is not the only usage for the word "docket". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd made the recommendation because the use of dockets in the legal context is far broader than just in courts, as I'd illustrated in the 3rd paragraph of my earlier response, but the lines between executive and legislative branch uses blur with judicial ones increasingly the further back one traces their legal history, which would make it impossible to remain within the bounds of "court docket" while adequately addressing that history. Perhaps, given your point -- which I grant is a fair one -- the better disambiguator would be "(legal)" rather than "(court)".Ravinpa (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept. The article as it stands is good enough for Wikipedia and can obviously be expanded if someone takes the time to do so. It is already beyond the level of a stub, and as we should all know, even stubs are perfectly acceptable articles. I really cannot see the nominator's reasoning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "good article" (subjective term there!) is not the standard for inclusion. Adherence to our notability threshold is. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it still does not meet the guidelines for notability? Also, that is not what the editor said. He stated it was good enough for Wikipedia; not "good article". There is a key difference. - SudoGhost™ 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it still does not meet the guidelines for notability? That is not what I said. I was pointing out that the comment, "I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept," seems to go against our notability guidelines, which doesn't contain a provision that any article on legal terminology should be allowed to stay. Therefore, the comment was irrelevant to this process. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I suggest you carefully read both Red herring and Non sequitur (logic) before linking them, as neither were used properly. Second, your entire response to the editor above is irrelevant to this process (which you yourself failed to adhere to). The statement was followed by an explanation, stating that it does meet the general notability guidelines. - SudoGhost™ 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seemed to have said that articles on legal terminology should always be kept ("I see no good reason why articles on legal terminology such as this should not be kept") and that position is simply not compliant with our policy. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you, so you'll have to disagree on your own if so. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're changing the meanings of the words of others so that you can easily refute them. Quoting the sentence that you did without keeping the context of the following sentence is misleading. It's not a matter of my disagreement, it's a matter of you arguing something that wasn't said and doesn't apply. Also, I didn't say you stated the above, I asked for clarification. I'll ask you again, do you still think it does not meet the guidelines for notability? Your insistence above that you did not say it no longer meets the guidelines warrants clarification on that point. - SudoGhost™ 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you. — I'll ask you again, do you still think it does not meet the guidelines for notability? — Do you really want me to repeat my previous comment? OK, if you want. I won't be continuing this line of discussion with you. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As SudoGhost said, you are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that all articles on legal terminology should be kept. And maybe if you reread my post you will see that I didn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't continue the discussion, stop posting. Your comment above is not part of the discussion, and is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE. You were wrong in your assessment of another editor, got called out on it, and now you refuse to discuss the merits of the article, but wish to solely comment on the wordings of the editors (which you reword and take out of context to suit your statements). If it wasn't when this AfD was started, notability has certainly been established now. Unless, based on the references currently in the article, it can be shown that notability has not been established, the article should be kept. - SudoGhost™ 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above bolded !vote is a repeat from the same editor. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bolding of the word kept, so as not to give the appearance of a separate vote, as that was not my attention. - SudoGhost™ 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above is not part of the discussion, and is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE. I think otherwise, but WP:WQA/WP:ANI/WP:RFAR are open to you of course. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, it does meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag: "which doesn't contain a provision that any article on legal terminology should be allowed to stay". And that's not what I said! You rather seem to be forgetting that AfDs are largely a process of opinion. If guidelines were set in stone we would not have AfD debates. They're not (which is why they're guidelines, not policies) and we do. Dismissing my comment as irrelevant is tantamount to stating that your own opinion (which you have put stridently again and again) is the only one which has any weight. Frankly, this is garbage. You have your opinion, others have theirs. Notability on Wikipedia is subjective. At the end of the day, it is not determined by editors endlessly quoting the contents of guidelines, policies and essays at each other, but by the opinions of editors who contribute to an AfD debate. I know there are editors who would like notability to be determined by a rigid set of rules, but that's not the way it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is how the AfD process should work: The idea is to vote and give the reasoning for ones vote. Then discuss and clarify the votes or positions, in the meantime the article gets improved if necessary. One has to assume that editors who bring their opinions here know the policies and guidelines, and arguing with them that they don't understand them is fruitless. My opinion is that the article currently passes the WP:GNG tests. patsw (talk) 19:35, 17 June 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. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex integration and homosexuality[edit]

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

another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. As it stands, its Synthesis, an excuse for writing an essay. . DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a grab bag of information that does not add up to a topic. Sexuality in prison populations is not the same as sexuality among non-prison populations no matter their segregation by sex. Saudi Arabian sexuality is not the same as prison sexuality. Some of the material can be reworded so that it makes sense, and brought to other more coherent articles such as Sexual orientation and the United States military, Prison sexuality, LGBT people in prison, or LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. Delete this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Synthesis at best, OR at worst. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear case of Original Synthesis, agreggating various sources none of which is dealing with this specific subject. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this is actually about sex segregation and homosexuality, anyway. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
I am the article's creator and a substantial contributor.
WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."
The reliable source Sadler directly connects 'homosexuality' and 'sex integration',
McGowan directly connects 'sex integration' with sex segregated 'prisons',
Albov directly connects situationally evoked 'homosexuality' with 'prisons',
Sadler directly connects situationally evoked 'sex integration' with the 'military',
Money directly connects situationally evoked 'homosexuality' with 'sex offenders', and
Cooper directly connects situationally evoked 'heterosexuality' with the 'military'. This by Wikipedia definition is NOT synthesis.
The key word in this article is forced, whether it is forced sex segregation, sex integration, homosexuality, or heterosexuality. Suggestions on a better title are always welcome.
Sadler, Cooper, MacKinnon, McGowan, Labi and Albov only occur here, Money is also in Occupational sex segregation, and Whatley also occurs in Sex integration. The authors are referenced in the other articles because the other article also addresses an issue that accompanies or is associated with that respective article. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The material presented here does not stand on its own. Rather, it is an aspect of sex integration and occupational sex segregation, plus a little bit of Saudi or Islamic sex segregation. The material would be put to better use broadening the articles about sex integration, etc. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Substantial material has been added since the above. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You added more of the same grab bag of dissociated studies which do not prove your thesis. For example, you state in the lead section that forced sex integration in the military can turn a homosexual into a heterosexual, which is baloney. No part of the article supports this. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are applying a double standard that neither I nor the article are. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell's Group[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sources do not establish notability of this Internet marketing agency. Fails the Google and Gnews test. Wikipedia is not a business directory. The sources that do exist don't count under WP:COMPANY. Any notability of the founder of the company is not inherited by the company either. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless genuine third party coverage is forth coming. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising: ....pulled together a team of Internet marketing professionals whose skills enhanced many other competitors in the nation. Russell’s Group began optimizing the flow of traffic to the websites of regionally based, nationally focused businesses.... Yet another Internet advertising agency advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis smoking etiquette[edit]

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

~~(Delete as nominator~~) This article is a non-encyclopedic essay on pot smoking. One flimsy reference. Contains how-to, OR, anecdotes, ect. Mjpresson (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is showing some promise after some attention. Mjpresson (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the unreferenced and non-reference-able "Double Toke" section go, it's full of the term "sucking" and no one has heard of this. I'd put in a keep vote if that can be removed.Mjpresson (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improved.Mjpresson (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the content might could fit in Smoking culture, but this is not a properly encyclopedic article. Note that the promising external link does not address the topic. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Numerous sources appear to be listed under "Further reading" - has anyone attempted to access these to see if they can be used as references to support the content? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding references. The notability of the subject is unquestionable to anyone who has a proper look for sources. The article may consist mostly of apparent OR or conjecture, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to vote delete before I checked out the article. It seems like a reasonable enough topic. Quotes from movie dialogue should be removed however, unless the movie really has something to say about the topic and another source says so. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough references for this to meet the GNG and therefore be a notable topic. Giant Snowman 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many references you have in an article, if the article is not notable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, so your argument doesn't seem supportable.Curb Chain (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all subjective information. People above claim there are references, but they are not inline. Should we have an article about every culture and subculture? That's why we have a notability guideline(s).Curb Chain (talk) 05:14, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George and Helen Adie[edit]

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

This was Prodded but, because it has a fair number of references, I think that it needs wider consideration, hopefully by editors with some knowledge of the field. The original Prod reason was "Fails WP:GNG". Procedural nomination on which I have no view. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For only one reason. I can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mouad Gouzrou[edit]

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

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

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

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

Is this "youngest journalist in the Kingdom of Morrocco" really notable? Indeed, there is no trace whatsoever that his work as a journalist is notable in any way. He is just "publicized" to be notable at present (being the youngest), but I am afraid that notability here is just temporary. Azurfrog (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only 'references' seem to be articles by this person, ie. they are not independent of the subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve it --41.141.96.182 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 contributions in all for this IP user? --Azurfrog (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be conserved. It was accepted at the first time because the administrators saw that it's in accordance with Wikipedia's policy --41.141.96.182 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC) struck !vote; one !vote per customer please. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same contributor again, I fear... --Azurfrog (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know whether this article is claiming that the subject is the youngest journalist in Morocco, or just that he is publicized as being the youngest journalist in Morocco. If the former, how do we know that's true? Who was the previous recordholder as Morocco's youngest journalist before him? How do we know who counts as a journalist anyway? I don't think there are formal criteria one has to meet to qualify as a journalist. Why couldn't someone qualify just by writing for a school newspaper? And now that the subject is 18 years old, it seems likely that there are journalists younger than him in the country or there will be soon, and it's possible that a competing news agency could steal his thunder by hiring someone even younger than he was when he got started. If it turns out that he is notable as a journalist in Morocco and not only for his age, the article can be re-created with less emphasis on the "youngest" issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, This article should be conserved as it was firstly accepted by the administrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.112.249 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two contributions in all, both for this AfD... --Azurfrog (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I vote for conservation~~ --41.141.112.249 (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) struck !vote; one !vote per customer please. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop voting several times? --Azurfrog (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve it. There is enough references. --41.141.112.249 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Recommendation struck as duplicative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This marks the third time that User:41.141.112.249 has submitted a recommendation in this discussion. And if he is the same person as User:41.141.96.182, then this is the fifth time. Please note that User:41.141.112.249 and User:41.141.96.182 are free to provide additional reasons why the article should be kept, but just repeating "Conserve it" is unlikely to influence the discussion significantly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't find any on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:53, 19 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Docketing software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The European Patent Office link is dead. There is no significant coverage of this concept to impart notability. And the article really isn't much more than a very fluffy and obvious definition of the term "docketing software" – which is fairly self-explanatory anyway! There doesn't even seem to be anything especially worth merging. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a term of two words that means the obvious thing. W Nowicki (talk) 17:43, 16 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marienbad My Love[edit]

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

The eBook this article is based off of is complete nonsense, it's not worthy of an encyclopedic entry and since the claims regarding it being the worlds longest novel are completely unsubstantiated I don't think there is any need to keep this article . Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not published by a real press, not reviewed, by a non-notable author, and even downloading the title made Firefox crash. That's a claim to something, but not to notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a work of art, if not literature. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the article -- I just fixed a couple of dead links and added several new ones. Lots of content online. I could fill the entry with external links. Perhaps that alone makes it notable. User:Dhalgren195 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Fo shizzle? Is there any evidence of this notability, besides the author's own claims? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I had totally forgotten about this article. i tried so hard to find refs, to show good faith. this was before i knew about what counts as notable, and before i knew about Twinkle (or i would have put it here). IF this book HAD gotten significant attention for its claim and size, then it could stay as a notable work regardless of its literary value. but i dont think it ever did get much attention. and since it was not printed, and has no sales records, we cannot show notability in those traditional areas for books. Basically, a failed Warholesque attempt at the shock of the new. Even notability as a famous failed work would count, but it didnt get that either. ps obviously computer generated in some fashion, which is why no one really was amazed by it. if this WAS even 10% the authors own words, that would have been interesting. Until this work becomes part of an AI research project, or similar text/meaning study, it doesnt deserve an article.(PS check out the article history and the inclusion of the full title, expanding the article to 40k!).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was me that deleted the title a couple of months back, I previously thought that just the title was unnecessary but when I came back too it I better understood wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is why its ended up here Alphaswitch91 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure use of CSD G11 was all that daring. This is an experiment in word count and I can find no treatment of this as a serious work of writing. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 21 June 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morrissey[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability or this person. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferences BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 16 June 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 keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elon University School of Law[edit]

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

I like to have the opinion of the community if this article is an advertisement or not. It is too beautiful, almost bragging. I don't have a good feeling about this just 5 years old institute. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because the nominator seems to be asking for editorial advice rather than deletion. Failing that, keep since there is plenty of significant coverage shown and any issues with tone can be dealt with in the normal way. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universities are considered notable by long standing consensus, and law schools are usually notable enough and distinctive enough for their own articles. I see nothing about this school or this article that would justify deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kind of tone is unfortunately common in articles about colleges, but I think it's better to put in the effort to clean it up rather than deleting. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of our commonly accepted practice of granting per se notability to degree-granting institutions. If there is promotional fluff in the prose, this is not the place to fix it. Carrite (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Please close this AfD and keep the article. I am convinced. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:01, 14 June 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Blanchard[edit]

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

Nonnotable person Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this person. He may well have behaved honorably in combat, but so have uncounted others. Nothing in the article indicates why he is so notable that he should have a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be any more notable than many, many thousands of others who have served gallantly in combat. Was he decorated for his actions? The article doesn't say he was. Even if he was, he would have to have a pretty high award or multiple awards to be considered notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deep COI issues here Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 19 June 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 it's not useful in this form and would need a sourced rewrite. Sandstein 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fabric[edit]

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

This unsourced article has been around for four years and has not been expanded beyond its current length of three sentences. Should be merged with Fabric or deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, please confirm that you were the editor who made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_fabric&diff=415918495&oldid=368079461 in which you seriously degraded the original article, giving no sources or reasons of your own; and 10 minutes later, removed all of PKM's suggestions for mergers.

This article was originally created as part of a major clean-up and expansion of the fabrics categories, as a joint project between myself and PKM. It is a well known phrase describing a class of fabrics, which overlaps with other similar phrases suggested by PKM. The stub was far from perfect, but was a good addition to the set of fabrics articles.

Unless you are prepared to restore the integrity of the original stub, and/or give good reasons for your actions, in (a) degrading it, (b) effectively replacing a number of good merger suggestions with your own deletion, I see your combined set of actions as entirely destructive, lacking in good faith and I will oppose you. Bards (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Ratchet back the tone please. No, that IP edit wasn't me (and it geolocates to England, which is a bit far from the tri-state area where I live). Feel free to restore it. However, I don't think the old version is any better, or resolves my concern with this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies if it wasn't you. I have done as you suggest - the original interest value of the article is restored as intended. A selection of links to other fabrics is restored. PKM's merger proposals are restored, as an alternative to deletion, which I support. A further alternative is simply to leave it as a stub, and permit it to expand gradually, which I also support. I propose you or I take a look at those other articles, and find a good resolution which retains the Technical Fabric title. It is (potentially) a valuable main article for Category:Technical_fabrics for people who don't know what a technical fabric is, or what the various types technical fabrics are, and want a brief overview of the terms and an introduction to the subject. Bards (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Category:Technical_fabrics is one of a few carefully chosen categories into which all fabrics are classified - Woven, Nonwoven, Knitted, Net and Technical. See the structure at Category:Fabrics, with Technical fabric listed there as a main article from the subcat, along with others from the other subcats. There is presently a lot of other articles which have been dropped there randomly, and need moving into appropriate subcats. Bards (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to redirect this to List of technical fabrics. I don't think leaving it as a stub of such tiny size is viable since the article is now four years old, and there has been no interest in expanding it. Four years and one day, to be exact. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Even after Bards' restoration, there's almost no content in this stub. I wouldn't oppose keeping it as it's non-harmful, but really, is this the sort of quality we're happy with? A clear candidate for WP:DELETETHEJUNK. The topic is an excellent subject (and should go as far back as Loden at least), but the current article is just too weak to justify itself. As an easily achievable quick hack, I'd support reworking it as a list article.

I would incidentally oppose all of the merges suggested. They seem a rather poorly thought-out bunch. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fairly meaningless. Any source-able material can go into fabric but it doesn't look like there's much! (Insert joke about 'pulling the lycra over our eyes' here.) ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:39, 16 June 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. CSD A7. There's nothing in the article that sets this company apart from all the other paper mills. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Paper Co.[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A paper mill in Canada? Who'd a thunk? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 16 June 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 Lemonade_Mouth_(film)#Sequel. and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade Mouth 2[edit]

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

No evidence that this film has commenced principal photography. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original film came out two months ago, so it's going to be a while for "2" to be announced, if it is. Crystal for sure, no sources. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear cut case of WP:CRYSTAL LibStar (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, apparently it was announced on The View on June 10th that there was a sequel in the works. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Likely in the context of the cast performing on the episode and their hope there is a LM2 off-hand (which would be a very obvious statement to make). A performance on a talk show which does not offer transcripts of their episodes cannot be used as a reliable source. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 16 June 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 CBD 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly, this article does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under what criteria do you argue that this isn't notable enough for its own page? There are plenty of pages that are a list of a summary of the characters of a multi-season show, even if the show itself is no longer in production (see here, here, here, here etc.). What consensus are you using to show that this series is not notable enough to have a list of its characters, and are you proposing that all "List of x characters" pages be deleted? You need to demonstrate that this page is different from and less notable than the countless other List of Character pages that exist, otherwise, I don't really see how this is "clearly" not notable. Bstbll (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JJ98, your edits don't make a lot of sense to me. It looks like you had previously merged the character list to Courage the Cowardly Dog, then split it out again in order to create this AFD. Couldn't you have removed any content you thought didn't belong in the main article without splitting it back out and starting an AFD? Also, it seems like you've nominated this for deletion twice before and both times withdrew the nomination before anyone commented. Are you sure this time that you think it should be deleted? Since it seems like you can't decide on what to do with this character list, maybe you should discuss it more on the article talk page to get some more input into how it should be handled. Calathan (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice that, it has been merged into Courage the Cowardly Dog two times before it was spilt. There are tons of non-notable characters from the animated television series and films, for example, I've nominated Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus Venture, Hank Venture and rest of The Venture Bros. characters for deletion due lack of sources and notability. See WP:GNG and WP:WAF for more information. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fine to me, agree with Bstball Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is merely an incomplete assertion. The article is a pragmatic spin-off from another article where its independent coverage is manifest. patsw (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For every notable television show X, we allow a list of otherwise not individually notable characters, which generally goes by the name of "List of X characters". Per WP:NNC, the individual entries need not be notable, and the notability of a "List of X characters" derives from the topic X. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without this page, the main article would be too long. It makes sense that the bulk of character biographical information is moved here. If the main article is notable (and i don't believe that is being questioned), then this article is notable as an extension to the main article. I grew up with Courage the Cowardly Dog and found this page to be very helpful. Webspidrman (talk) 24:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is pretty much standard for WP. Fancruft but that's what fans seem to want. Doesn't do the rest of us any harm. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article only provides primary sources to back up the content, but no secondary sources to presume that the list of characters meets general notability guideline which means that it fails the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists and notability is not inherited to every content fork. The list itself is merely a plot-only description of a fictional work, so it falls into what Wikipedia is not, making the list inappropriate for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This article is an arbitrary content fork and an unnecessary split of Courage the Cowardly Dog, which has an article size of 21.5 KB, way below the recommended article size to justify a split of plot-only content. I do not think that a merge would be appropriate given that most material is taken with original research and the article gives undue weight to minor characters and antagonists. Jfgslo (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment stipulates that primary sources exist which is mutually inconsistent with the subsequent opinion that delete is more appropriate than merge. The multiple arguments that the material should not have been split stand against the argument that the material should not be merged. Which is it? By definition, a list is not a plot-only description. Both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE are content policies, not notability guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list has no justification to exist as a stand-alone article other than being a split, so I assumed that the content was split. But that does not mean that the material is appropriate to merge since the majority the content of the article has original research, for example the sentence "Though capable of speaking fluent English, Courage mostly does so to the viewers and other non-human characters, largely tending to speak in unintelligible gibberish to most human characters", which is not published in any reliable publication and it is not justified to include in a merge. The very little content that is referenced is done so with primary sources, so that means that any editor can take that content from them again and that avoids future problems with the GFDL that a merge would invariably cause. So, with lots of OR and nothing outside of primary sources, a merge is not justified in anyway. A list of fictional characters with no real world context, reception or significance is a list of plot-only and it's not appropriate for the criteria of WP:SALAT. And WP:OR is one of the reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful lot of acronyms you've linked to, but unfortunately you haven't interpreted them correctly. We only delete an article for OR if its very conception is OR; we do not delete verifiable topics that happen to contain OR statements. "Notability is not inherited" isn't relevant to subtopics of notable topics, but rather to notable topics that may be associated with separate nonnotable topics (such as the mother of a political office holder, an employee of a company, etc.). And your dismissive justification of deleting the content that isn't OR, but derives from primary sources ("that means that any editor can take that content from them again") is frankly contrary to everything Wikipedia is about, given that it would be true of information from any available source, whether primary or secondary. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you may think, the article still does not have references to suggests that it meets the WP:GNG. Lists are subject to notability per WP:LISTN or they must be appropriate per the WP:SALAT and I have already pointed out why the article doesn't meet either of them. This still is an unjustified split per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the majority of the content is WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH if you prefer) as anyone can see by reading the list and checking that most of the content is either unreferenced or is taken by interpreting primary sources. The policies and guidelines are quite clear and there is not a valid reason to keep this article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that reliance upon primary sources, in and of itself, constitutes OR, which isn't correct.

Further, given that you concede that the list is not entirely OR ("the majority of the content is WP:OR"), and because the main article has no character descriptions at all but instead just links to this list, this is at most a merger candidate. Which means that the scalpel of normal editing must determine what to trim from this list and whether it can fit into the parent article, as opposed to the wrecking ball of AFD. Can you at least agree that normal editing and discussion should have been attempted first, before taking this to AFD?

Lastly, to whatever extent the Manual of Style section WP:SALAT or the notability guideline WP:LISTN would "prohibit" this list (I don't see where the former is clear at all on this point, and the latter is incomplete at best in its descriptions of practice), it is contrary to the consensus repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, for both split-off TV series character lists and episode lists. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Patsw. Difluoroethene (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A delete position has already stipulated that primary sources exist for this subarticle, the rest of this discussion is better decided by the involved editors on the talk page of the article. Given that this is only one of two subarticles on the main article, I see no reason to doubt the decision to split. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete: only sourced to primary sources, with a few sources to verify cast members. Falls extremely short of the general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent". Coverage is not significant or independent. Despite the keep comments here saying that rules don't apply to spinoffs, guidelines state that spinoffs should meet notability guidelines. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT 74.198.9.152 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; standard split-off from series article. A series' characters are obviously an integral part of that series, so they have to be described to some extent, even if only from primary sources. And whether such a character list is substantial enough to merit splitting off into a standalone list is an editorial decision. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Nine Kills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I took this to AFD over CSD because this version of the article seemed to be an improvement from previous incarnations, but still delete worthy. Though the band has since released an album through a notable label, the album didn't receive any coverage from reliable sources, and the label has since gone under. In fact, none of the sources present appear to meet WP:RS. I still don't see this band meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that they are currently listed as a Ferret Music Artist, a label which did not go under, just switched hands to Warner Music, have performed multiple years on the Vans Warped Tour, and are currently listed as the #1 downloaded signed metal band on Purevolume.com above notable metal bands such as As I Lay Dying and Breaking Benjamin, makes them worthy of inclusion. (http://www.purevolume.com/top_downloads/?genre=Metal&signed_status=signed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that if you examine a couple youtube videos i've found of the band, it is clear that they have an impressive fan base which reaches far beyond their Boston hometown. The following linka are videos of the band performing on Warped Tour in Florida as well as Chicago, with hundreds of kids singing along to the bands songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR3ClDoHqqo as well as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z09qeZYhOLw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The heads of Ferret Music left and started Good Fight Entertainment, and Warner Bros. currently holds the rights to all Ferret artists, but Warner isn't really doing anything with Ferret bands so it's widely considered a defunct label. Warner only put out like three albums last year with Ferret stamped on it. The Ferret website had not been updated since May 2009 last time I saw (which was about a month ago), and now it's completely offline. The same thing happened with Trustkill Records. A few YouTube videos and a Purevolume ranking do not demonstrate notability. Please address the nomination directly and provide published sources that demonstrate how Ice Nine Kills meets the guidelines at both WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The band was featured on page 42 of Revolver Magazine's Hottest Chicks in Hard Rock issue this past fall. This particular issue which featured Taylor Momsen on the cover received world wide attention: http://www.tmz.com/2010/10/14/taylor-momsen-parents-television-council-revolver-gossip-girl/ . Revolver magazine is a widely circulated magazine that you can find in most books stores in the country and constantly contains interviews with the biggest rock stars of all time like Ozzy Osbourne. The band's song "we ate gilbert's grapes" has been featured in the Lionsgate skateboard comedy dishdogz as the opening and closing credits. This movie starred famous skateboarders Ryan Sheckler and Tony Alva as well as tv/film stars Luke Perry and Haylie Duff. This movie has been available at Blockbuster video stores across the country and is currently on Netflix and On-Demand. The band has performed multiple dates on the world famous Warped Tour alongside such notable bands as Sum 41, A Day To Remember, and Punk Legends Bad Religion. The bands influence has stretched all over the world and has even influenced bands in far off places like Indonesia as evident by this Indonesian band covering their music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmLAin4c9s0. The band did so well on their one week stretch of Warped Tour 2009 that they were invited back for 2 weeks in 2010. The Warped Tour official blog Reporter even noted that they were one of the biggest drawing bands she had seen all summer on that stage: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=106236213177 . If the band still doesn't fit into the exact criteria needed for inclusion, i think wikipedia should seriously consider revising the prerequisites for inclusion or make exceptions in some cases where it is necessary. I have personally seen bands included on this site, who may infact fit the exact criteria ie. be on a major label, but are far less known than this particular band. This band does have a large following and are worthy of inclusion. Please strongly consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have this issue of Revolver. On page 42 there is a two sentence "article" on the band that more or less says what genre they are, and that their name is derived from Cat's Cradle. This would fall into the category of trivial coverage. It's also irrelevant to this discussion who is on the cover of the issue. The claims of having a song in a movie and having their songs covered by other bands would only be notable if these events themselves recieved significant coverage—which they have not. The criteria for inclusion is very simply seeking at least a few published articles about the subject that also "address the subject directly in detail". I don't think that's asking for very much. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether or not the feature on them was extensive in Revolver, their band name, photograph, and a recommendation from the one of the most credible rock magazines in the U.S. was included. It is not irrelevant for me to include that TMZ write up (the issue was also featured on E! TV) because it proves that that particular issue that they were in received even more attention than the average issue. The Magazine liked them so much that they were invited to attend and walk the "black carpet" of the 2010 Revolver Golden Gods awards along with Ozzy, Rob Zombie, The Devil Wears Prada, and As I lay Dying. Check out the interview the singer did on the black carpet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfd6Ocv7XOI To discredit the bands involvement in a movie made by the powerhouse studio Lionsgate is ridiculous. Along with a full U.S. tour with the popular Nu Metal band Taproot, The band's guitarist JD was invited to guest appear with them at several of their live shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_UkLe1m_Q I would also like to point out that the bands A Loss For Words and Therefore I Am, from the same area, are included on Wikipedia. I find this band to be just as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The notability guideline is only looking for published sources with a lot of detail so one could presumably write a verifiable and in-depth article on the subject. One could not write an in-depth article based on the two sentences in Revolver, thus it is completely trivial. The notability guideline doesn't care who was on the cover or how much the publication loves the band, only how much information is available. I am not discrediting anything, I am only seeking verification through the proper means. Googling "Ice Nine Kills" "dishdogz" only turns up 25 results, none of which are published articles. If this were truly a notable event, someone would have written something about it. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        also, if dishdogz isn't a notable enough movie to be attached to, why does it have it's own wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said the movie wasn't notable, only Ice Nine Kills' contributions to the film weren't notable. Songs are used in films all the time. What makes this particular occurrence so special? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were used as the opening and closing credits, obviously marking the song as theme of the movie. Music plays a huge role in the way films are perceived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, band was deleted several times 2 years ago! Since then they've been signed to Ferret (which is owned by Warner Music Group; the third-largest music business in the world), and have been on The Taste of Chaos, 2009, 2010 and will be on this year's Warped Tour, had one of their songs on a film staring Luke Perry and have been in a nationalized music magazine. You would have to be kidding yourself to actually think this band is not notable to have an article on site with bands like Curl Up and Die in its roster which aren't even half as recognizable as INK. GunMetal Angel 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as I asked of the above IP, could you please respond to the nomination directly. Which part of WP:BAND does Ice Nine Kills pass? Where is the significant coverage that WP:GNG is looking for? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia states that "trivial coverage" is defined as the following: "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." The following is the direct quote from the Revolver piece on Ice Nine kills: "Manic sing-scream metalcore that should have fans of Bring Me The Horizon and Alesana singing, screaming, and moshing along." I'm sorry but that is not trivial coverage, that is the magazine comparing them to 2 very notable bands of the genre and recommending them to fans of those bands. I also found that the band was featured in Alternative Press Magazine issue #240 recommending them to fans of Senses Fail, Atryeu, and Story of the year. Alt press also took note that "Their DIY mentality has won them fans far from their New England home." Those 2 examples right there prove the band "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Also, INK "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Here is a link to the offical Warped Tour facebook where their moderator commented on Ice Nine Kills as having one of the largest draws at Warped Tour all summer for their particular stage: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=106236213177 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the complete transcript of the Alternative Press Article on Ice Nine Kills taken from issue #240, again, this would not be considered trivial coverage: THE STORY SO FAR: Ironically pop punk forefathers inspired Ice Nine Kills to quit playing pop punk covers after forming. "The turning point for us was seeing Goldfinger," says vocalist Spencer Charnas. "That performance inspired us to start writing our own music." The result is a mix of arena punk and melodic screamo. It's not uncommon for us to listen to death metal one minute and The Phantom of The Opera the next. WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THEM: Their DIY mentality has won them fans far from their New England home. Ice Nine Kills album The Burning is a consisten top 10 seller on Smartpunk and they witnessed 6,000 iTUNES downloads during a two month span at the beginning of this year. "We see kids at malls all across the country wearing our shirts and listening to us on their iPODS," says Charnas. "It's An amazing feeling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I wrote this last night before your second reply, but forgot to submit it) What you are quoting is only a brief list of examples that may pertain to music pages; it's not an exhaustive list. The example from WP:N gives a broader definition: "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial." A trivial source is one that only briefly mentions the subject without any depth. Two sentences in Revolver is plainly trivial. I am also familiar with the Alternative Press source you're referring to, though I don't have it in front of me. It's boarder-line trivial due to it's brevity, but it definitely has more information than the Revolver one. The facebook link also clearly demonstrates a trivial mention, and it's also from a biased first-party source. Of course Warped Tour is going to promote and say positive things about Warped Tour bands. This needed to be referenced by a third-party published source. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have provided thus far is a brief article from three years ago with some usable facts, and an extremely brief and trivial "article" from last fall. That is nowhere near the amount of coverage that the notability guidelines are looking for. I tried to make an article for this band myself a while back, and I personally could not find much more coverage than what you have provided here. It sat in my sandbox for over two years before I gave up and realized they would probably never meet the guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the guidelines for inclusion it does not say "an exhaustive list must be provided," it says multiple sources. Multiple means more than 1 and 2 have been provided thus far. If you google "Ice Nine Kills" a large amount of information comes up: Articles, Interviews, Lyrics, Guitar Tabs, Album Reviews, Concert Reviews, etc. etc. etc. look for yourself. Wikipedia defines "Trivial coverage" as either performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories, both the Revolver and Alt Press coverage clearly do not fall under any of those. So technically this has passed the guidelines. I'm not interested in your definitions of these words, you told us to examine the wikipedia guidelines and that's what I have done. Infact, I'm quoting DIRECTLY from the guidelines. Do you have a personal vendetta against this band? You still have not responded to the comments of other bands like A Loss For Words and Curl Up and Die being inclusion worthy...this looks like a case of selective persecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also just discovered that this past fall/winter they had a 2 page feature/interview in Substream Music Press issue #21, a magazine that is sold in Barnes and Noble, Borders Books, and many other book stores across the country. But I'm sure you'll find a way to discredit this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VJIk-SdL2O8J:www.substreammusicpress.com/Current-Issue/issue-21-featuring-asking-alexandria.html+ice+nine+kills+substream+magazine&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were also featured in a full page interview in AMP magazine no. 35. This magazine is also sold all over the country at places like Barnes and Noble and Borders. You'll notice they even list Ice Nine Kills right on the cover of the magazine: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.assault.it/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/amp_magazine_rise_against.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.assault.it/2008/12/04/assault-featured-in-amp-magazine/&usg=__la8xM4y0JpkS0NKjLkQxFZTb__I=&h=770&w=589&sz=169&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=mX3Ucz_R8QqC1M:&tbnh=144&tbnw=136&ei=SwjtTYPLHIPMgQfmhp3ZCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAmp%2Bmagazine%2Brise%2Bagainst%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1191%26bih%3D583%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=136&vpy=57&dur=8&hovh=257&hovw=196&tx=123&ty=136&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1191&bih=583 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to also point out that ofcourse "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton," would be considered trivial coverage of that band. The main reason being that the article was not about the band Three Blind Mice but about a former president. The random inclusion of a band in an unrelated article is trivial. However, The article in Revolver about Ice Nine Kills was under the title "One more band you should know about."
    - Due to the current length of this discussion, I have responded to a lot of your questions, comments and misinterpretations of guidelines and policies on your talk page. I must say that I'm a little impressed by your findings of these two magazine articles. However, based on the links you have provided alone, I have no reason to believe these articles are features. Some magazines just list bands to fill up space on their covers. For example, the latest issue of Decibel lists Melvins in a large font across the top. However, once you flip to the article, it's only the lead singer giving commentary on various songs and has nothing to do with Melvins. I'd like to email these publications to verify that these are in fact features. If they are, then Ice Nine Kills would definitely satisfy the notability criteria. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this page may have potential to be notable enough for keeping. They are signed to a label with a Wikipedia article, and have had one album released through it, while the other one was independently released. I know that that alone doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines (because it takes two non-independent albums), but I'd like to point out about Dishdogz that the notability guidelines state with rule ten that a notable band "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film". I don't find this article to be worth deleting. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the above discussion. It's long and messy, so here's the abbreviated version: Article was nominated for deletion due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Two magazine articles from Revolver and Alternative Press were presented, but deemed too short and trivial to establish notability. Two new feature-length magazine articles were then presented from AMP and Substream, but only in the form of a link to the album cover. Based on my background knowledge of: magazines in general, the links provided for the articles, and the discussion with the IP, I was somewhat justified in believing these could be just as trivial as the first two articles presented. I emailed both publications to confirm they were features, and Substream (but not AMP) has since gotten back to me with a confirmation. So where this discussion now lies is on whether or not the articles from AMP and Substream demonstrate sufficient notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding Factor. Well since Substream Magazine has confirmed it was a feature, as long as AMP confirms the same, I think the discussion should then be over and the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 19:21, 12 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep From what i can gather from above, there have been multiple people who agree it meets the guidelines for inclusion and only one person who is unsure. The band has been included in notable publications such as Revolver Magazine and Alternative press, and although these mentions could possibly be construed as "trivial, " 2 other publications with features on the band have been found. Those additional magazines being Substream and AMP who feature the bands name on the cover of the magazine and are sold all over the US in books stores such as Barnes and Noble and Borders. -oldSCHOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.67 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- You are only allowed to submit one vote per discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In reading the arguments of the users above, I must agree with the majority on this decision. I recognize this band's page has been deleted multiple times in the past; however, the fan base of the band has expanded in the last 2 years. It seems the only person strongly opposed to the band's inclusion is Fezmar9 (talk). With that being said, the band should be considered notable due to their appearances across the country and holding some 30,715 fans on facebook. Numerous other bands that hold pages on Wikipedia have many fewer fans on facebook yet are not spuriously accused of insignificance by Wikipedia users that reject a band for its genre, not its relevance. Moreover, the revolver magazine reference is important enough to assure the band's significance. 68.14.128.70 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabeh Sager[edit]

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

Article on singer. I cannot find sufficient support in the RSs to reflect wp, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one English language source that names him as one of a group of top singers boycotting a music festival. There appears to be piles of news coverage in Arabic. The machine translation from Google makes a real hash of the Arabic translation so it is tough to make out the content but this appears to be coverage about some sort of soccer victory celebration at which he sang. This appears to cover his appearance at some other big concert. This really needs an editor proficient in Arabic to deal with the sourcing as English sources appear to be rare. However, the lone English source, the large number of Google news hits on his name in Arabic, and the two articles I picked out would indicate that sourcing is available to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Good research. The first Arabic RS ref has 2 sentences that mention him, as you indicate regarding him singing at sports victory celebration. The second Arabic ref you supply is from an RS, but appears to be a glancing 1-sentence (partially about him) reference. I'm not certain that these refs added together constitute the significant RS coverage called for under the notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an AFD is to determine if an article is to be kept or deleted. I think those sources, establish that the there is very high likelihood that reliable sources exist to establish notability, and build an article. The major impediment is that it requires an editor proficient in Arabic to do that work. That we have far fewer Arabic proficient editors when compared to Star Trek fans is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My written Arabic comprehension is limited, but this has been listed at the delete sorting for Saudi Arabia. We do have a number of Saudi singers on wp, with coverage in English and non-English sources reflected. I'm happy for the article to be kept if we can discover evidence of notability within wp's rules. I just am not certain that our approach, under the guidelines, is to presume that RS sources exist, where we have not been able to uncover them, based on less-than-substantial RS coverage. That would, IMHO, be like saying -- for non-English-speaking countries, if RS coverage is non-notable but indicates that the subject exists, it is good enough. I'm not clear that that is the approach we take, though I understand you and/or others may differ.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not presuming that reliable sources exist. My opinion that notability is highly likely in this case is based on the material I mentioned above; material that comes from reliable sources. When we have a reliable source that names him as a top singer, then I would say it very likely that he has notability. In other words, those items listed are evidence that notability is likely, and that sources are likely. We need to be wary of systemic bias. It's all good and fine to say that it has been deletion sorted for Saudi Arabia, but who is paying attention? Wikipedia:WikiProject Saudi Arabia/Members shows 40 members, but almost none of them appear to be active editors. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood you -- I was focusing on your above statement that "I think those sources, establish that the there is very high likelihood that reliable sources exist to establish notability". That suggested to me that you were in agreement with my thought that the indicated 3 sentences (in 2 sources) were insufficient -- in and of themselves -- to establish the "substantial" coverage in RSs that we need to satisfy wp notability rules. But I understand that I misinterpreted your statement, and apologize for that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For other editors seearching in English, it appears that another transliteration of his name in English is "Rabeh Saqer". There may be others as well. Last.fm has him listed with the "q" spelling. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is one of the top 10 musicians in Saudi Arabia, I think this article should be expanded not deleted, I added a link of the Arabic Wikipedia Entry for him, I believe the reason he is unknown to anyone outside Saudi Arabia is because he specializes in Saudi type music. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 10:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you provide some source like a profile of him in a newspaper or magazine? I think that would make it an obvious keep. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that it would be helpful if you could supply some substantial RS coverage, meeting our notability requirements. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in a single 2002 news article does not suffice. The burden is on the article creators to demonstrate notability through sourcing. If acceptable (primary-coverage) sources are used in the article (not just identified as being somewhere out there, but used in the article), I will then reconsider. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 5 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) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is an article where he is the primary subject. As best as I can tell from machine translation, he is the singer for the music in a TV series. This is an album review. All of these things establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Which of those do you consider to be RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them as I wouldn't bother posting them if I didn't think they were useful. But in particular, the first one appears to be a publication with an editorial board that is explicitly identified on the web site. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also think that the first, with which I am familiar (Asharq Al-Awsat) is an RS. The second ref may be an RS (not sure), and says what you indicate, in a 1-sentence mention. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is Okaz. From what I can gather, it is part of a group of papers that isa competitor to Asharq Al-Awsat. Not sure how reliable this book is, but it indicates it is a major paper. Only viewable in snippets, but page 277 in this more reliable book again indicates it is a major publication. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Okaz may be an RS. It mentions the subject in 1 sentence. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 11 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 14 June 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. The article has been rewritten and much expanded in recent days so the older opinions may no longer be (entirely) applicable. Can be renominated if somebody thinks the current version is still fundamentally problematic. Sandstein 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water[edit]

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

Original research on a news story that otherwise wouldn't be covered in an encyclopedia. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is not original - see Detection of Lead in the DC Drinking Water System for a substantial source devoted to this topic. Warden (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "source" was one hearing report before Congress that consisted almost entirely of preprinted statements on lead contamination in general or other prepared remarks. How is that a substantial source on this topic when hundreds of such reports are prepared every year? How is this article different in scope than Lead contamination in X city drinking water or Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. public housing? At best it's a topic for Wikinews. MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS at its worst - an article based on one story! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Enough references. Meets WP:RS and WP:N. And it is not a news story, it is a phenomenon observed in the said region. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. If it is kept it would need a complete rewrite since it seems to be used as a vehicle to talk about Marc Edward. There is also a lot of other stuff in it that unnecessarily pads out the article. It would be good to have a dig to see how much info on the topic there is out there. In the meantime the Water pollution in the United States article is crying out for some content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) for more about him and this topic. The material needs reorganising so that the DC water topic is covered here while the Marc Edwards article is more biographical. This will be best done by ordinary editing, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree totally with Alan Liefting that this page needs to major on the issue not on Edwards but I think that the rewrite does that. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to say that the coverage in the Washington Post and Environmental Science and Technology is enough to demonstrate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo isn't independent here, it's about the Env. Sci. Tech article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator is correct that this would not appear in a paper encyclopedia. However, the advantage of being ethereal is that we can cover a wider range of topics. I see no reason why we should not report important research provided we do so in a WP:NPOV manner. TerriersFan (talk) 22:26, 7 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the general topics of water purity and lead poisoning are extremely important, vital in fact, this is just a report of one instance. The article Washington D.C. could have a section on the water system where this information could be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge, then? TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Content can be merged to Washington D.C.. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, and as an example of recentism. This is just a report on a contaminant found in the drinking water of one city. It is already covered in District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. Is it argued that any case in any city, in any year, where a couple of articles were published about water contamination, soil contamination, or air pollution, there should be an encyclopedia article? Every large or small city would be entitled to dozens of such articles. It makes more sense to have one article about the water system of a major city. Edison (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:GNG. Leonnig's coverage of this topic in the Post makes the issue notable along with the other articles mentioned at Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor). That Leonnig won an award for her coverage of the topic is even more endorsement. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The current article is terrible, but the topic is extremely notable. Please compare the version of events I just rewrote over at Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor); that version focuses on Edwards' very substantial contribution to the issue, but there is more out there. This incident is highly noteworthy: 15 parts per billion of lead is too much for safety. Above that, and kids get brain damage. Because the Army Corps of Engineers switched from chlorine to chloramine for water treatment, the lead levels in DC rose to over 1,250 parts per billion. That's so high that the water coming out of the kitchen tap legally qualified as hazardous waste. When informed of this, the water authority tried to hush it up, yanking Edwards's funding and getting the EPA to do the same. The CDC released a report saying there was no health risk—which they later had to publicly retract after a House investigation found it to be, and I quote, "scientifically indefensible". That was a major black eye to the CDC and caused huge ripples. Water systems all over the country changed the way they handle chlorination and pipe replacement because of what happened in DC. Even today, DC is still struggling with lead contamination issues in their municipal water. There's 44,000 kids in DC that may be permanently brain-damaged because of this incident. There are academic articles, newspaper articles, books... heck, I found a Good Housekeeping article about it. It would be a shame to delete this topic just because no one has bothered to look into it. I've proposed, per WP:SPINOFF, that the better details at District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority#Controversy be merged into Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water as a starting point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge, and I'm working my way through the article adding from the massive wealth of information on the topic that's out there. I encourage anyone who !voted early to have a look at the article now, and see if it changes your mind... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep misuse if wp:notnews: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." the ongoing and continuing scandal is verifiable by multiple reliable sources over time. Wikipedia:Notability (events): "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable."; "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."; "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." it has all of these. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 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. v/r - T P 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARAIS[edit]

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

Although this company appears to have many connection to government contracts, this article feels like a resume. What is WP:N about this company? Phearson (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phearson, I wrote the article about Marais and the trenching machines last week, actually I am still discovering Wikipedia. What do you suggest me to change in the article? you said that it feels like a resume and I would like to give another impression. Several trenching and heavy equipment companies just give an overview of their history. Let me know what do you think. Thank you in advance. Cvergnolle (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with the article is that it isn't notable enough under WP:CORP. The company doesn't seem to have been written about in any significant way by sources that could be considered reliable, or fully independent of the company. The references given in the article are given for the parts of the article that couldn't be considered controversial and most of these are self-published. I suspect that due to the apparent lack of notability it would be difficult to bring the article up to a standard that makes it useful. If the company becomes notable then there would be no problem with recreating the article at that point, but at this time there isn't significant depth of coverage to warrant an article. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that this article has enough significant sources, because when I see the wiki pages of the 2 other trencher companies,this page has probably better references than the others. I can realy see different significant sources from different countries. --Amerceron (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Amerceron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment It's not so much about the sources for the information that is there (5 of which are used to reference a single piece of uncontroversial information), it's more about the notability of the company. The other two companies that you are referring to have supported statements of awards that the company has won from external sources, this suggests notability. There are still problems with these articles, but they are entirely separate from this discussion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE Phearson (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Business has been notified. Comte0 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, and comment Generally speaking, the key to meeting en.wikipedia's notability rules is whether the subject has been substantially discussed by independent sources. Anything written by Marais is of little use. Similarly, a passing mention in an article about somebody else using a Marais product proves nothing. What you need is more stuff like this and this and this - I think that there are enough sources like that to show Marais is notable, but only just. As far as I can tell, articles like this and this aren't really about Marais, per se - they might be useful to verify individual statements in an article but not to establish notability. Similarly, this might be hosted on an Australian government website, but it seems to have been written by Marais. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 8 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL generate several relevant results from http://Francebtp.org/. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by now, this article seems to have enough relevant sources to meet en.wikipedia's notabilty rules. best regards, --SEMEYN (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinatorism[edit]

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

I am not convinced by this term's notability. It may have occurred in some works of Michael Albert, but it does not seems to have been used very much (if at all) outside the writings of the aforementioned author. The article does not contain anything which could not be described in other pages such as Bureaucratic collectivism, New class, State capitalism, etc. Moreover, as far as I know, no single existing political system has ever defined itself as "coordinatorist". IMHO, the article could be deleted, or perhaps merged with the Michael Albert article (or we could just delete without merging, and mention the concept in Michael Albert).

Delete or merge with Michael Albert (preferably delete, I'd say). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary coverage of this concept - although introduced by notable political theorists, it has not caught on - and therefore fails the general notability guideline. --Anthem 17:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per fact that the AFD was made by a sockpuppet. Also I dont se eno apparent reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction at reading this was : "What ? Are you calling me a sockpuppet ? Whose sockpuppet ?". FYI, it was me who started the AFD, not Anthem (or Claritas. No idea who that is). Also, the reason is stated above : no coverage besides a few mentions in the works of Michael Albert. This concept did not catch on. Also, no system ever defined itself as coordinatorist : this simply does not exist. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. This article also seriously overstates the contribution of the coiners of this phrase, who just coined a phrase. For the thesis itself, see the 1941 book by James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, as well as the work of others. Scrabbling together an esoteric and unused "-ism" about this idea contributes nothing. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Burnham's phrase for this concept was "Managerial society." I don't see an article on the concept currently standing; there could probably be one written and sourced out — although WP is running a little slow on topics of intellectual history at this still early stage of its life... Carrite (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: this piece has a serious case of Original Essay Disease. Carrite (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Carrite, & WP:OR. Non-notable neologism.--JayJasper (talk) 16:49, 17 June 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. v/r - T P 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic World Publishing[edit]

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

Article was originally put up for speedy on A7 as there were no claims of notability. It was contested by the article's creator claiming this is the oldest publication of its type in the UK (although I'm not sure that would even confer notability on its own if confirmed in reliable sources), so I have removed the speedy. But I am still unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability or confirm that fact. This appears to fail WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG, as there is no evidence of anything notable in any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence presented of notability.—Chowbok ☠ 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Chowbok--BristolRobin (talk) 13:51, 23 June 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. v/r - T P 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakam Saazish[edit]

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

Article was Proded, endorsed, and then deproded (with no explanation), so we are at AfD. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK as I am unable to find any major reliable source reviews or award coverage in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support reflecting its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CHRYSTAL, Sadads (talk) 11:05, 17 June 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 keep. Since the nominator is not really advocating deletion I'm going to be bold and close this under WP:SK 1. I'm also going to remove the "notability" tag from this article as a personal editorial decision. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Éliane Jeannin-Garreau[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Concern was "Unreferenced biography (both external links are dead). Contains questionable unsourced claims (see Talk:Éliane Jeannin-Garreau." Lord Vetinari 14:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the external links are dead doesn't mean it's unreferenced. You can view the links' previous content via the Wayback Machine, here and here. So it's a referenced biography. Besides which, if you hadn't heard, there's a tool that helps you search for sources. If you use it, you'll find things like this source, which is about the street that was named after this lady.
The suggestion of "questionable claims" is absolutely right: this woman was certainly not "the right hand person" to the leader of the French Resistance! These questionable claims should be removed, but you can do that using the normal editing process. It's not necessary to use AfD.
That she was an active Resistance Member, that she was captured and tortured by the Nazis, that she had a street named in her honour and she subsequently wrote a book about her experiences, are all well-attested and verifiable facts. She seems to be of modest but genuine historical importance, sufficient to establish her notability in Wikipedia's terms.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, I'm not determined to delete this page. I prodded it in line with its talk page comments, and I AfDed it in line with the dePRODders suggestion. My goal is merely to remove the notability tag. I'll let the community decide whether to remove the rest of the article with it. If the page is kept, then I'll concur. If the page is deleted, then I'll concur. I just want it dealt with once and for all, rather than stuck in notability limbo for another 3½ years. Lord Vetinari 04:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just be BOLD and remove the notability tag? If someone still thinks the subject is not notable then they can take it to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, because I don't know if it's notable so have no justification for removing the tag. I am a bit inclined against the article, though, so brought it here, rather than hoping someone will do it in the future. But I think we're getting a little off topic here. Lord Vetinari 07:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Has a street named after her, played an important part in the Resistance, interacted with a lot of interesting people, and, most importantly, her Ombre parmi les ombres, Chronique d’une Résistance won the the prix d’Histoire Générale de l’Académie française in 1992. I therefore argue that she does indeed meet WP:SOLDIER under category 9. We need more articles on people like this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 15 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil A Rastani[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that he meets our criteria at WP:People. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass by the notability requirements. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete It has various sources and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcher123hi (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Butcher123hi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would'nt delete It, it seems to have enough sources as Butcher suggested.Abdullahtheperson (talk)— Abdullahtheperson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Note, the above editor has one edit, and it's commenting on this AFD. Note that policy is about multiple secondary reliable sources that note why the person is not notable, and not just any source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Contributing some articles to a webpage is, unfortunately, not the type of of scholarly output needed to demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I've haven't any reliable sources except the ones subject has provided. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:08, 18 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalusa (language)[edit]

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

Expired Prod. Prod reasoning, "Non-notable personal project with no references beyond the creator's and friends' personal pages and a message group". Perhaps wider consensus can determine notability. Hu12 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.

Delete. It seems clear that this constructed language is a web based project that has not yet received any significant notice outside its circle of interest. Suggest redirect to Calusa, a Native American people who once lived in southern Florida. Unfortuntely, very little of their language survives. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if someone can rescue this through better sourcing, that would good, but I don't see how I can fix the problem. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is interesting and well-written, but indeed, sourcing might be a problem. Just in case, I've transwikied it to http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Kalusa —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original creator of the article. I argue for a Keep based on inherent notability of corpus driven conlangs if my vote counts. I would at least like to point out to future voters that though it is true that most of the citations are of people who were connected to the project, anybody within the conlang community who were interested enough to write about the project would also have been interested enough to join in. So it might be like arguing that Quantum electrodynamics should not be included because all of the references are to people who are involved with Quantum electrodynamics. But I understand that the argument is weak, I just hope that the AfD discussion will be thorough and conscientious. --Sbp (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vote does count, but there's no way that individual conlang with a certain design principle is inherently notable. In fact, even corpus linguistics probably wouldn't qualify (although its notability has been thoroughly proven), and it's doubtful that even an article about "corpus-driven conlangs" would stand up to scrutiny. Also, this is very different from something about a well-known field of science. This is more like an amateur scientist who writes an article about his pet theory, then cites his home page, fringescience.com, and some forum posts.Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability outside of the community.Curb Chain (talk) 06:20, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanks (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited. (Article was Proposed for deletion, and PROD was removed by the author of the article without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I executed a search online and literally couldn't find anything notable except mirror websites. Results either led to Tom Hanks or something related with the name. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:01, 15 June 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. v/r - T P 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Métis Transit Limited[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all of notability. The article gives no independent sources, and searching produces no significant coverage, most of what there is being on Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. In fact, the best I have found is http://www.caledonontario.com/getting-around.html, which says "growing population prompted local resident Darren Parberry to start a trial bus service with two routes, called Métis Transit Limited, which ran briefly in 2006". The article was deleted following a PROD, with the reason given as "Defunct transit system. Googling for this transit company indicates that it barely ever existed at all. It is not clear how the single bus operated actually ran, but it can't have been more than a month. At current time, it lives on only in the form of the very broken website, and there does not appear to be any actual plans for it to resume operating. As it was almost non-existent from its conception, it isn't particularly notable or encyclopedic." The talk page says "Métis Transit was a very short lived and somewhat deluded attempt at running a transit service by its owner. It owned one bus and VERY briefly in 2006. It is now quite dead. The only reason the article does not reflect this is that the owner has edited it to reflect his own vies (see history)." The article has been undeleted following a request for undeletion by the user Metistransit (presumably with a conflict of interest). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added three references to articles in the Toronto Star. I don't have time right this second to integrate them into the article, but there was apparently a little coverage of this, anyway. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those sources is available online. One was written before the business started operating, and essentially what it says is that a person was hoping to set up a bus service, and predicted it would be very profitable. The other was opened a few days after the business opened. It tells us that the owner of the business says that "if he doesn’t drum up some passengers and soon his dream will die an early death". I am unable to find a copy of the other one ("Caledon Transit Service Plans Relaunch"), but what there is does little or nothing to establish notability. Essentially what we have is reports that someone tried to set up a bus service and failed. We have something like WP:ONEVENT, except that that is about "notable for only one event" whereas the "one event" in this case is not even notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third article basically says service began with a single school bus in Jan. 2006, and ended in Feb. of the same year due to lack of ridership. It talks about attempts to raise capital, including an investment of undisclosed size by a charter bus service called Canada's Pride Transportation Services, and plans to operate with three actual transit buses. Aside from confirming the service did run very briefly, it probably doesn't do any better at establishing notability than the other two. Those three articles are all I was able to find. I leave it to others to interpret the information and reach consensus accordingly. I think my own judgement is too compromised to cast an actual !vote. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be operating and if it ever did, it was only for a brief period of time. The company website does not show any current information, especially not about services or routes. PK T(alk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Toronto Star articles might just count towards notability, but without coverage in a second reliable source, this fails WP:ORG. I tried looking, and found only hits about an unrelated company thousands of miles away. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable documentary (unfortunately). Has not progressed beyond three short sentences in three long years! Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I'd say, like any Paramount movie, any BBC documentary is almost always inherently notable. At least it should be merged into (an as of yet to be created) List of BBC documentaries. 131.211.84.85 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has a goal to cover all educational topics, instead of just popular culture ones that get more media attention. Notable people, who have their own Wikipedia articles, were involved in this. It was also done by BBC. This isn't some student film, or a political thing done by a group to promote their own agenda. Therefore the documentary is notable. Dream Focus 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notability isn't inherited. Unless there's some significant coverage of this documentary the article should be deleted. --Anthem 16:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

All Nobel prize winning people are inheritedly notable. All works by a famous author from at least a hundred years ago are automatically notable enough to have their own articles. Different standard for more recent authors it seems. All documentary which BBC thinks notable enough to make and put their name on, which many notable people also are part of and put their name on, is in fact notable. Dream Focus 08:51, 6 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) 01:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline. --Anthem 16:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:15, 15 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 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. v/r - T P 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bramwell Long[edit]

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

Vanity autobiography of businessman, unsourced except to his own organization's website (whose name matches the name of the account which created the peacocky article). Orange Mike | Talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:BIO. While a BLPPROD by another editor was rejected as the article has one primary source, I have no idea why the PROD by myself was rejected as no reason was supplied. --Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- explanation - mostly procedural; there were assertions enough of notability that I felt the article deserved an AfD discussion in order to be fair. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not whether the article has sources, the question is whether the subject is notable. A news google archive search on "Gerard Long" + Alpha turned up a number of articles in reliable news sources.[2] This is a new article put up by an organizatin about its head. Obviously, the author of the article is clueless about how to source a Wikipedia article. That does not mean that the subject is not notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I began to read the news google hits, and began to think aobut changing my vote to delete, even though some of the articles are behind a pay wall, but then the Washington Post described him as "one of the stars of the church saving circuit" and quoted him at length. That, and the size of Alpha, seem to confirm notability.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus an interview in The Christian Post. This article needs editing to remove the peacock aspect, and sourcing. Not deletion. Many sources are found by simply googling "Gerard Long" + Alpha. I.Casaubon (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about significant coverage. The coverage in Washington Post is in passing. The interview in The Christian Post is mostly about the alpha course. I'm not saying there are no sources, but if you want to keep the article, you will need to dig them up and add them to the article. At the current state the article lacks coverage which s required to show notability by WP:BIO.--Muhandes (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 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) 01:57, 5 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving song[edit]

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

Neither a genre nor a style. While some sources use the term, there's no source that defines it, making most of the article original research. Six words (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The truck driving song certainly seems to be a recognised genre.[3][4][5][6] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's also compilation CDs on the theme, eg [7], [8]. This is a sufficiently established term (even a genre) to support an encyclopaedic artice. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support Merge, per the discussion between Warden and Six words below. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As RichardOSmith mentions above, "driving song" is certainly a recognized term, and there are some famous examples (mostly already given in the article). However, as Six words also points out, there are no sources that actually adequately define, analyze or discuss this topic in a way that would be appropriate for an article. If someone makes a compilation of music and calls it driving music, then that is certainly their opinion, but it's not enough. To address Phil Bridger's comment, I agree that truck-driving music has more standing, but that's not what this article is about— none of the examples given in the article could remotely be called truck-driving music. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources which discuss this in detail, e.g. Rockin' Down the Highway. Warden (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the blurb and the first few pages this source seems to be about Car songs - according to the Driving song article that's something different. --Six words (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It contains material about music which one might play while driving. The topics are closely related and it would make sense to treat them together, as this source does. Warden (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. --Six words (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Car song (maybe with a different title). --Six words (talk) 11:46, 30 May 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) 02:26, 5 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:17, 15 June 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 all.

The focus in this discussion rested on a single question--is the Albanian Superliga a "fully professional league" as that term is used in WP:ATHLETE? This question was debated in this AfD and the various policy talk pages at length. Both the weight of the discussions and the few observed shifts of opinion during the discussion lean "no," and thus delete.

Moreover, there was no controversy on the question of whether the ten footballers met WP:GNG, consensus was that they do not. Three participants specifically indicated that the ten footballers did not meet GNG, no counterarguments nor evidence was presented in rebuttal.

Further, I note that WP:ATHLETE begins:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.

Where WP:ATHLETE gives us an arguably ambiguous answer but WP:GNG provides a clear enough one, the GNG takes precedence. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brunild Pepa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Albanian Superliga which is listed and sourced as not fully pro at WP:FPL and therefore does not grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failure of WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication that they meet notability guidelines. All fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am also adding the following article to the nomination, for the same reason as the ones above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Albanian superliga is a profesional league and should deserve an article! --Vinie007 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please check WP:FPL because Albania is on the list --Vinie007 06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I admit I wasn't aware that Albania had a professional league earlier, but Vinie007 has pointed to irrefutable sources that the league is actually fully professional, hence all the Albanian players of the top league would be per se notable.--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Yes i think the same. Superliga must be include while first league don't deserve an article for players. --Vinie007 14:37, 23 May 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) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fail WP:NFOOTY as they have not competed at a fully-professional level of football. No significant media coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV either. --Jimbo^[online] 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. WP:FPL states that the Albanian league is indeed fully-professional (and it's supported by three references) so all the players do pass WP:NFOOTBALL . Jenks24 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not convinced about the links at WP:FPL - as far as I can tell (i.e. with the help of Google Translate!), the two news items simply refer to a 'professional league' without confirming whether it's truly fully professional or if there are still semi-pro teams there, and the league statute document seems to make no reference to players' professional status whatsoever. Could someone who can actually speak Albanian point us to where exactly the league's professional status is confirmed? —BETTIA— ^talk 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with Bettia, I've just run the sources through Google Translator, and yes, they mention the Professional League as a name, a brand, but don't actially seem to prove that the league's financial status is indeed fully-professional.
Keep as per WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:FPL (essay) lists the Albanian Superliga as a "fully professional league".Guoguo12 (Talk) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Neutral, awaiting confirmation of league status (see below). Guoguo12 (Talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is very questionable, please see the two comments just above your own. Giant Snowman 09:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia list "List of professional sports leagues" defines a professional sports league as one "for which all players and teams are paid to play". Is this not the qualification used at WP:FPL? Guoguo12 (Talk) 19:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, no. The clue is in the title - FPL = fully professional leagues i.e. ones where the players are not only paid to play but are paid enough to be full-time sportspeople who do not have "day jobs". Many leagues contain players who are paid a small amount to play football but not enough to not have to have a day job as well. Does that make sense.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had a look at that article, it contains leagues like the Welsh Premier League, which is definitely only semi-professional, i.e. the players do get paid some money to play but also have day jobs and do their football training after work. So it isn't fully professional as required by WP:ATHLETE (or whatever it's called now..........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying that. I've changed my !vote to "awaiting confirmation of league status". Guoguo12 (Talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 5 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my concerns given above. I'm not convinced the Albanian League is fully professional, meaning these players do not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY, and there does not appear to be the substantial third-party sources available to meet the general notability guidelines. —BETTIA— ^talk 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. The AfD has been open for nearly a month and it hasn't been proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's a fully professional league. They don't pass the general notability guideline so they should be deleted. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:31, 16 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarmoon[edit]

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

I think it is a simple case of a non-notable band but other editors disagree with me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A CSD was contested for no compelling reason. No credible claims to notability, and no reliable sources were provided or have been found. Clearly fails at WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this band in reliable sources, only their own website, social networking sites, iTunes, etc. Subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 15:39, 17 June 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. Sandstein 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Against the Occupation[edit]

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

Advertising for a very minor organization and its website. Though it is not clear since their website no longer works. The second link goes to a blog. [Google reveals] that this is almost unknown outside itself. The website is linked from virtually nowhere. Looks like self-promotion. [WP:NOTABILITY] Soosim (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For what it's worth, the group's website is archived. But the group's own press clippings don't establish notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent references. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jewish_Anti-Zionism. The article topic has been referenced in scholarly articles, eg. from a Google Scholar Search:

When You Can't Go Home Again—or—How I Became an Anti-Occupation Activist N Ben-Ari - Bridges, 2004 - JSTOR ... 1 was on the Manhattan Bridge enroute to work when I saw the tow- ers on fire. That day set off what was long overdue: my activism. When I met the Jews of Jews Against The Occupation in New York, they were a nov- elty. The Jews of the Gola,9 we said in Israel, were weak. ... Govynn (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support of notability, per Malik.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Cannot find any RS to demonstrate overcoming the notability threshold. Basket of Puppies 04:10, 22 June 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. v/r - T P 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the Civilization video game series[edit]

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

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Prod removed without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this article different from any of the articles in Category:Video game soundtracks? It looks to be a collection of video game soundtracks. Keep in mind that Civilization IV won the first-ever Grammy Award for a video game soundtrack (ref). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this article started as "Music of Civilization III." The editor behind it was well-meaning, but the content proved irrelevant, consisting of minutiae with no major impact on design or gameplay, and a listing of such tracks as "AncECFull." To make the article pass muster and/or improve our coverage by centralizing it, he's moved in the music section of Civilization II and the contents of Music in Civilization IV, and added a track listing of Civ V.

The Civ II listing should be moved back to its page if this one gets nuked. So should the contents of Music in Civilization IV, which is an important part of our coverage of the game. IV's soundtrack is one of its most important, prominent, and acclaimed features, containing as it does tracks from seventeen historical composers, tracks from one well-established living composer, and the first piece of video game music to win a Grammy Award. The Civ V listing looks like it could supplement a centralized article on music in the Civ series, but does not play a major part of describing the game. (Though I haven't played Civ V myself, someone who has could check.) So I guess I'm for "delete and untangle," but I'm worried that a decision to delete this page would be taken as a mandate to remove all it's drawn in from Wikipedia entirely. --Kizor 00:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd definitely be for untangling these into their own articles. In the end, it may be a matter of reverting to pre-merge versions of Music in Civilization III and Music in Civilization IV; and perhaps creating any of these that we deem notable: Music in Civilization (video game), Music in Civilization II, Music in Civilization V, Music in Civilization Revolution etc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, When Music in Civilization IV was an article, from August 22, 2006 to May 28, 2011, which is more than four years, it was always kept, and never challenged - User:OttomanJackson —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Notability here would depend on meeting WP:MUSIC (which it clearly does not) or WP:GNG. The GNG calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Such coverage is not currently present in the article. (That it was previously kept, for however long, in another form is a moot point. Please see WP:WAX.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No such sources are cited in the article or here. No objection to splitting off content to articles about individually notable soundtracks, if any. Sandstein 08:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The following appear to be reliable sources directly commenting on the topic. [9] [10] [11] The question is how best to present the information on this topic. While I am not convinced that we need track listings for all the games, the music is clearly an important part of this series and deserves coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your first link is to walmart.com. While it proves the game exists. As for the music, it rates a single sentence. Next up is Worth Playing, apparently a review site. I don't know if it's a reliable source (with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and all that), but it barely mentions the music in the series, other than to discuss one song, "Baba Yetu". The third link is to a press release. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:22, 13 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, Courcelles 09:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only notable part of the article is the one referring to Civilization IV, the other games of the series does use music from other sources, this article should be either converged into only passings to the other games with a major focus on C:IV or get deleted. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I am impressed that so much thought and creativity was put into the music for these games the topic is too trivial for an encyclopedia article. A couple of sentences in the main article would do. The detailed information would be better given on a fan site, or the official sites of the games. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untangle the sections back into the parent articles, and then delete. I can, however, see an argument for retention of a Civilization IV soundtrack article, which is that a song from that "album" won a Grammy Award. Also, I do see that Allmusic has a listing for the Civilization V soundtrack, but as there is no review or commentary, this is more akin to a database listing, which does not establish notability. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The Civ 4 soundtrack won awards, thus if this article is deleted please move the relevant information into the Civ 4 article as it is not in great detail there. Would be a shame to lose some good encyclopedic content whilst removing lots that isn't notable. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see http://www.gamessound.com/texts/chan.pdf - dissertation from student in Nottingham, UK. also http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/4355 - http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/4355 Govynn (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although PhD dissertations are generally considered acceptable scholarly sources, Masters- and Bachelors-level dissertations/theses, such as the two you linked, are usually not, unless they've been independently published (e.g. in a peer-reviewed journal) or "can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". In other words, I don't think those dissertations are helpful here. cmadler (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this page is considered for deletion makes me put in my two cents. Please don't delete. Games are becomming more and more popular, for scholarship and what else. Music in these games is getting more and more important. Especially games where people put much thought into, deserve to be up on wikipedia for peoples interests. I found this site to be very helpfull and hope you won't delete. Thanks, a regular wiki visitor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhkemna (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that interesting or even helpful are not criteria for inclusion. Notability -- meaning the degree to which others have taken note -- is. We measure that by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article topic. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the entire Civilization series, having spent countless hours over the last two decades playing Civ, II, CTP, III, IV, and IV:Colonization, and I'd love for Wikipedia to be able to include this topic in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to have been written about enough elsewhere yet. cmadler (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. The few noteworthy pieces of information (Grammy award) can be included in the parent articles. Marasmusine (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep/Comment - Geoff Knorr (the composer for Civilization V) has LOTS of info and links on his official site. He has info on some of the songs, origins of most of the songs, and links to interviews and reviews. These are all reliable sources, and therefore establish notability.

Links:

http://www.geoffknorr.com/knowvg.html - info on video game music Geoff Knorr - Civilization V only. This also contains clickable text for information on 7 leader themes (Arabia, England, Greece, Japan, Mongolia, Ottoman Empire, and Persia.

http://www.squareenixmusic.com/reviews/chris/civilization5.shtml - review of music in Civilization V

http://scorenotes.com/soundtracks/civilizationV.html - another review of music in Civilization V

http://www.squareenixmusic.com/features/interviews/michaelcurran.shtml - Interview of Civilization V composers

http://scorenotes.com/civilization5.html - another Interview of Civilization V composers

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3181602 - another interview of Civilization V composers

http://www.1up.com/features/music-civilization - info on the music of Civilization V, behind-the-scenes info — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:OttomanJackson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here Goes Everything[edit]

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

no notability shown for this band. notability is not inherited from Naked in Black!. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Myspace and Last.fm band duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot establish notability, myspace cannot be used as primary source and the other references cite Naked In Black!, which notability cannot be inherited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deposit: The action of depositing base money into a deposit account[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LK (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a proper disambiguation page. The links are to three articles with different names. If there is a need to distinguish between different types of deposits, the articles themselves can make the distinction. In any case, the article on deposits is already effectively a disambiguation page. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per. Wikipeterproject, not a proper disambiguation page. The length of the title renders it pretty useless. --Anthem 11:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [12]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its title seems like a movie poster or a book. Anyway, the article is not even a proper disambig page, its content does not have or provide any encyclopedic value to WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per all above. There's a movie you can safely skip.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly useless as either a dab page or stub. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page obviously attempts to do something useful and constructive and surprise surprise not one single editor has suggested it might be doing that. Instead all want it deleted because it is so against policy. Deposit is a confusing word and there are plenty of people who want it to remain that way. Nobody can change the article pages because of the small army of editors who arrive to ensure deposit remains a confusing word Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]

Comment: Andrewedwardjudd, see deposit, which links to various articles about deposits. I think that should satisfy your concern. If there are more articles that should be linked from that page, they can be added to the list. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that page remains to disambiguate deposit then i am happy. I assumed the intention was first to get rid of this page and then to get rid of the disambiguation i attempted altogether, where so far on the page i am using which needs deposit to be clear, it has not been possible to get the meanings clearly explained without immediate deletions. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]

Strong delete. The page isn't encyclopedic at all, it simply states how a deposit works. I think alot of people already know about a deposit. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people know that deposits can refer to different monies, where one is an iou and one is something more tangible. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Committing Social Suicide[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. one gnews hit [13]. otherwise all i could find is directory listings on music websites or customer reviews. [14]. no evidence of charting or significant indepth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable, as any further research provide no reliable coverage. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AllMusicGuide shows no biographical or chart information for the performing band, Help She Can't Swim, just a simple discography. WP article on the band has no references of indication of notability. Quick internet search likewise turned up nothing to indicate that anything the band has done is notable, much less this specific EP.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:21, 15 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WUSA Queer Collective[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a non notable university student organisation. passing mentions in gnews [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=wollongong&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Queer+Collective&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every uni has one, and very very few of them if any are notable. Queer Collaborations is probably the one notable product of campus GLBT organisations. Orderinchaos 04:07, 20 June 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 Occupational_sex_segregation. Any useful information can be merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational sex integration[edit]

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

Yet another collage which claims to be about sex integration but which in fact is a random assortment of things the creator presumably finds interesting. What useful content there is here is redundant to other articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marshallsumter (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the article's creator and a substantial contributor,
'a random assortment of things the creator presumably finds interesting' is groundless opinion,
WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."
The first reliable source Reskin connects 'occupational sex integration' with 'sex wage gap'. A second reliable source Hartmann connects 'patriarchy' with 'workplace'. Subsequent reliable sources connect 'corporate patriarchy' with 'sex integration' - Simpson, 'joint trades' - Hartman, 'corrections' - Etheridge, 'military patriarchy' - Bickford. These reliable sources connect 'sex integration' by women into the labor force with 'religion' - Psacharopoulos, 'priests' - Foss, Sullins, Chaves, Fathi, and Preston. This by Wikipedia definition is NOT synthesis.
'redundant to other articles' Of the reliable authorities referenced in this article (nineteen of them by name, here is a breakdown of sex integration articles where their contributions are also present by reference number in this article, 'name', and article abbreviation:

1. Reskin '88, none,

3. Anker '97, Occupational sex segregation (OSS),

4. Hartmann '76, none,

5. Simpson '00, none,

6. Haj '92, none,

7. Etheridge '84, OSS,

8. Ben-Ari '07, none,

10. Bickford '97, none,

14. Psacharopoulos '91, none,

15. Foss '84, none,

16. Sullins '00, none,

17. Chaves '93, none,

18. Chaves '99, none,

19. Fathi '97, none,

20. Hoodfar '04, none,

21. Preston '04, none,

22. Brinton '93, none,

23. Ravanera '02, none, and

27. Svedberg '09, none.

Sex integration articles having none of these are Sex integration and homosexuality and Sex integration. The authors are referenced in the other articles because the other article also addresses an issue that accompanies or is associated with that article. Here is a breakdown of author overlap:

OSS uses 27 authors of which only two are used here. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete with "Occupational Sex Segregation". These are the guidelines for Merging. The content for both articles is far more similar then dissimilar in subject matter. As stated above there does seem to be some POV represented in the article that may represent an inequality for some readers of the Wiki.. These are the POV guidelines as well as some information regarding reliability [[15]] for your review.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Merge and delete is generally not recommended as an outcome for an AfD. Such a recommendation should probably be changed to say that we should merge the content with Occupational sex segregation and redirect this article title there, or delete it altogether. A "merge and delete" recommendation will often be interpreted simply as a merge recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Occupational sex segregation. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Occupational sex segregation. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As User:Roscelese has pointed out 'Sex integration' and 'Sex segregation' are opposites. The scholars who write the articles cited in the article know that. There are forces that work for one but not the other. An effort sometime back to combine these two met with apathy, probably for that very reason. While a title such as 'Gender and occupation' or 'Sex and occupation' might be reasonable, these fall short of the mark. 'Patriarchy' is an example of an apparent force for segregation. Yet today many fathers fight for gender/sex integration so that their daughters can lead successful, happy, fulfilling lives. So for those considering Merge, I suggest you reconsider. Such a merge would probably have two parts: 'gender integration' and 'gender segregation'. Just a suggestion. Marshallsumter (talk)
- Forces that work toward one work against the other. The opposites are connected at the hip. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A simple-minded approach that is short-sighted and often wrong. There may be a connection, there may not. But, the forces at work and the number of occupations in the spectrum from almost purely segregated such as Roman Catholic priest or gestation of humans (yes, it is theoretically possible for a male to carry a fetus to term, though volunteers are coming up short) where women, so far, are paid to do it, to almost completely integrated makes such a merge well beyond the usual maximum article length of ~ 100 kb. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With an earlier effort to merge Sex segregation with Sex integration, editors seeing the phrase sex integration in the sex segregation article felt that the two articles should be merged; however, when replaced with the opposite phrase and appropriate adjectives felt the articles should be separate. Sex segregation is an extreme that is the starting point to define sex integration. Sex segregation can be a separate article because it need only focus on this extreme where ever or when ever found. The term sex integration starts to have meaning when one member of the opposite sex, or other gender, is present. Another often used term is desegregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:36, 22 June 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) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine stats[edit]

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

Notability of List in question, not sure if it is necessary or provable through the links provided. User who created this is trying to advertise for his search engine. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. According to the history page, the creator has been the only editor aside from two other editors. I agree that the page is clearly advertisement for a website. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:45, 10 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is user:Rozbif's pet page.Curb Chain (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Updates are done regularly!", this article is a blatant violation of several guidelines, including SOAP, FORUM, NOTBLOG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:22, 14 June 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 Inflection. And whoever wants to merge (and source!) stuff should feel free do so from the history. Sandstein 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflectional morphology[edit]

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

Stub that contains no substantive information not covered more thoroughly in Inflection. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Inflection. —Angr (talk) 09:36, 8 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inflection. It's essentially the same concept, and currently links there. Cnilep (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Inflection. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:23, 14 June 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) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New[edit]

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

No notability established. All refs are blogs or very local papers and may also be from Press releases. Some refs unavialble outside the USA. No hits, No coverage outside Florida Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two articles of note are from 2007 and reference another band the rest fall under WP:SPS and WP:IRS(Ke5crz (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable band, has no charted songs, albums, their songs haven't been covered by critics or performed by other artists, etc. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:24, 14 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Remedy[edit]

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

A Commodore 64 (c64) musician. "He makes dance/house remixes of C64-SIDs, and in 2002 he released a C64 remix album named Instant Remedy" Album is available for download on c64music.com (article says c64audio.com, which is now dead)... not what sure c64music.com is about. Only info from searches comes from forums and youtube links. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously lacks notability and preliminary research does not provide reliable sources which could prove or sustain his notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo except for his MySpace page. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:44, 18 June 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 Bombardment. v/r - T P 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarding[edit]

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

This 1-sentence article appears to be a dictionary definition, solely, and as such not appropriate for a wp article. Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombardment, which is more likely to be what people looking up this term are searching for. If the content that appears on this page now is worthy of coverage in Wikipedia, it should be moved to a different title (probably using a qualifier in parentheses), but I have no opinion about whether this content is worthy of coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bombardment, per Sandstien's changes. Well done! Keep. The Neon sign article has a substantial section on the topic, and a quick Google search appears to reveal a variety of sources that could be used to improve the article. (If the section from Neon sign had any citations, I would simply move some of the content; but it looks like a bit more work will be necessary to do it right.) Also, for those considering redirect, please note that the Bombardment article has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept currently covered at Bombarding. Renaming the page in question to something like Bombarding (neon lighting) might be a better approach. -Pete (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you really suggesting that it be deleted and redirect to Neon sign, and that the material here be brought there, and that material expanded over time?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this one word can be used in a variety of contexts adn is unsuitable as an article title by itself; there's no content not already explained in tne Neon sign article, and it needs the context of taht article to make any sense. An absurd choice for an article topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bombardment, which now has a hatnote to the newly created Bombardment (disambiguation), where the neon sign meaning is mentioned. Doubtful that this detail of a technical process is substantial enough for a spinoff article. Sandstein 20:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(small procedural note) If/when this stub is changed to a redirect, I'd suggest changing the link to it in Mercury (element)#Other present uses to a section link in the Neon sign article. Leaving it for now though, as the existence of this article is still under discussion. -Pete (talk) 18:34, 23 June 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) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barakat Fahim Ali Mohamed[edit]

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

Negative BLP that seems to fail WP:GNG. Just one source and that one is dead. IQinn (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability, primary source, not the subject of secondary source coverage. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I remember coming across this article while patrolling the NewPages log that day, but I didn't think any of it in case there were sources. But I just searched and didn't get any, this may be a hoax. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:02, 19 June 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) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rung (band)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this band reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one album, only one independently notable member, no sign of anything charting nationally that I can find, no awards - so it doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND. Also, most of what little text was there was a copyvio, so I've removed it. The band's "official site", www.rungg.com, is defunct and the URL has been reallocated, so I've removed that too. One of the other external links was a defunct domain, leaving two - just an interview and a profile at a Pakistan pop site. I can't find any coverage by reliable sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Maybe it will climb up the notability ladder on another day. Lugnuts (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source can't cover the article from being deleted, and I doubt other sources will turn up anytime soon. But if one day rock solid information surfaces the article has the green light to come back. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:41, 16 June 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) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Figuerero[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. nothing in gnews. google search yields directory listings nothing indepth. [16]. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 15 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diaz (musician)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources when I typed "Andres Rafael Diaz" in a search engine. References are very important if this article wants to stay around. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources on the Kvasir search site; I added some. And the Side2 reference that was already in the article is a full-length interview article on him. Meets general notability guidelines as someone widely covered in the press. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:21, 18 June 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) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhina Montilla Avila[edit]

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

No significant coverage that establish notability. Moray An Par (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She may have been the one to pick up Bakshelf dog's sun glasses. (per Telegraph ref) Anyway she appeared in UK, Spain and Philippines, so I thought a speedy delete was out of order. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 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, 7 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) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews and could not find any reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 14 June 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. v/r - T P 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Castillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Town mayors are not notable per WP:Politician. Previous afd cited a "notable" scandal. Link provided is dead. No significant coverage on subject that establishes notability. Moray An Par (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Baseball Watcher 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 as mayor of a municipality with a population of nearly half a million with plenty of press coverage as found by the news search linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 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) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the single source, an archive of the link on the page, there is not even a mention of the subject.--v/r - T P 00:16, 14 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) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the project's criterion for its maintainability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article fails Wikipedia:Notability. I typed Jessie Castillo in a search engine and came back with zero results. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What search engine did you use? The Google News archive search linked above in the nomination gets 139 results, most of them reliable sources and many with significant coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not able to judge the significance of Bacoor in order to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN #2, but the news coverage [17] does satisfy WP:GNG, even though it is not focused particularly on him, but on events occurred during his term - frankie (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No vote but Bacoor is a city masquerading as a municipality (town). It is the largest municipality in the Philippines, and politics willfully prevented it from becoming a city; a cityhood bill is currently filed and it'll be interesting how it turns out. So any argument that this guy is a mayor of a "town" should not cut it, unless someone comes up with a better reason. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:48, 18 June 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. v/r - T P 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-Pop[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism for a musical "up and coming next big thing"; fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question The prod had one day left. Why not let it run its course? ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 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) 02:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not clear whether this is better covered here or at Music_of_vietnam#Modern_music, but the terminology does exist and appears to be in popular usage when discussing Vietnamese pop music, e.g., [18] (mainstream vietnamese press, article about people hating V-pop boy band HKT], so I'd favor keeping and improving the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's all well and good, but significant usage isn't the same as coverage as you well know. That is my reasoning is that there isn't enough significant coverage of the term to establish notabiltiy. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if I may have a say as a non-user?) I have been recently involved in live discussions about the differences between and growth of J-Pop, K-Pop and V-Pop (as a British person in London, England). While the article is still pre-natal and needs improvement, this clearly has international relevance and growing notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.28.141 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - in other words, it's an "up and coming next big thing". Sorry; we don't do those until they have actually become notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, i think the problem here is just finding good sources, which will mostly not be in English. the "up and coming" baloney is how fans typically suggest their country's pop music is going to spread in popularity throughout the region. But articles like this 2008 one in Le Courrier du Vietnam show the term is the descriptor for vietnamese teen pop music (article is in french, essentially discusses how the 'princes and princesses' of v-pop are getting famous and dominate the vietnamese market).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is news coverage proving this is a real musical genre. The article was apparently written by someone who isn't a native English speaker, and needs to be rewritten. Google news finds some results for "V-pop" and then one for "vpop" which is an article in the Los Angeles Times. Dream Focus 07:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of sufficient coverage (as opposed to mere usage) to even tell if this is a distinctive genre, or merely a neologism for pop-music-from-Vietnam (the lack of specificity of the characteristics of this purported genre, in the article, seems to indicate the latter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
observation - article has gotten much worse since the nomination, apparently being edited by enthusiasts whose command of English is minimal. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neologism and non-notable genre. Keb25 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 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. v/r - T P 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of the Horns[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. a band with no notable achievements. passing mentions in gnews [19]. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of any notice in the press or elsewhere. No record successes of note. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Evidence exists:

A Trove search provides:
1. An album, Realm of the Damned released in 2007 on Invictus Productions. Also at Allmusic, here.
2. Appearances at Metal for the Brain, a major heavy metal festival in Canberra. They appeared there in 2005 and 2006. According to another ref, also in 2003
3. Broadcast on 3RRR radio, including an on-air interview here in 2006, other appearances in 2005, 2007, 2008 gig, 2009.
4. Backed Swedish death metal group Dismember in 2005, here.
5. Toured Europe in 2010, here.
Voices from the Darkside, interviewed by Steven Willems here, interviewed by Stefan Franke here.
Spirit of Metal, has a biography from 2002. It lists a 2002 album, Call to Arms, here. It has an editorial review at Amazon.com, here.

All up sufficient coverage to establish notability in their field of music.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 9 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) 02:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the evidence provided by shaidar cuebiyar it is clear that the article satisfies WP:Music, in particular criteria 4, in that the band has toured not only Australia but also Europe (twice). It would also appear that the band may satisfy criteria 5, in that it has released three albums on an important independent label(s), Inviticus (an independent Irish record label) and Hell's Headbangers Records (an independent US label). The band has also been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources (as indicated above). Dan arndt (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I searched and found similar results to @Shaidar cuebiyar (I didn't comment earlier because I thought he'd already found good results). I've added some to the article. there are some magazine interviews and reviews - not 100% sure if they're zines or full mags but the interviews are published online also and seem in-depth coverage. this music genre isn't one I know much about, but the sites seem to be representative of the styles. also found event listings and forums where people commented the band was a good example of the style in Aus (not that we can use those as RS, but sometimes they're useful to get a feel for what people in that community think about the bands as they'd know more in some cases). the band members seem to have changed often - there seems to be some crossover of band members with members of Deströyer 666 and Bestial Warlust (& again, though we can't really use some as references, people do seem to hold these members in high regard from what's mentioned in the comments/interviews/reviews). also I removed some of the external links (see Talk page) and tidied some commas - though there still seems to be many commas! I think the article needs a bit more work on grammar/sentence structure perhaps to improve it, but shouldn't be deleted. Kathodonnell (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC, end of story. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:04, 22 June 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. v/r - T P 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treetops Executive Residences[edit]

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

This was originally deleted under G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". It was then created via the Articles for creation process. However, I do not see that despite the many references there is enough to show that this meets the guidelines for notability.

While I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, I feel that the provided references are far short of what we would expect to see in an article about a truly notable subject.

As I type, the following references are present in the article:

Reviews on TripAdvisor"
- Reviews can be added by anyone, so no reliability there
"Customer Centre Initiative - Treetops Executive Residences"
- It says "An advertising feature" - so not independent of the company
"Great service behind SuperStars in the making"
- A minor mention - that an assistant manager of guest services at the service apartment
"Life in the Treetops"
- This would not count as 'significant coverage'. Five questions refer to Treetops either in the question or in the answer ("Why did you choose to live in a serviced apartment?"; "How does life here differ from that back home?"; "Why did you choose the Treetops?"; "I was slightly taken aback at how courteous and helpful the guards at the front gate were when I came in. I’m used to getting the third degree about the nature of my visit."; "How did you go about furnishing your apartment?")
"Its about serving you better"
- The same document as number 2
"Netting the Expat Dollar"
- The general manager (one person quoted in the article) mentions using digitial marketing - not 'significant coverage'
"HPB Silver Award Recipients 2010"
- An award issued by the Health Promotion Board of Singapore - I'm not sure this meets the criteria for notable awards
"Treetops awarded BCA Green Mark Gold Award 2010"
- Again, I'm not sure whether Singapore's Building and Construction Authority's awards count as notable outside of Singapore
"HPB Bronze Award Recipients 2008"
- As for the HPB Silver Award
"Property Focus"
- This gives further information about the BCA Green Mark Award, again not the significant coverage required by the notability criteria
"Earth Hour Organization Support 2011"
- This confirms that they were a participant, but only as one name in a list of organisations involved
"Energy conservation"
- Talks about their energy conservation, but it is not the significant coverage about the residences as a whole

Although this sounds like nice serviced apartments, that is not enough! I feel that a better place for this article would be at AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany or MyWikiBiz. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT: 'advertisements masquerading as articles'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i understand that the article is put up for deletion, may i defend myself on this? 1) Wikipedia is a platform for info, and facts, acting as an encyclopedic reference; i have written this article based on facts and data i collated, though there are points that are read as sounding like an ad, may i know then how i can rephrase them so that it doesnt reflect as one? 2) Wikipedia is for constant updates and inputs of readers who know about a certain topic, so that they can continue adding on; in that case, why should it be considered for deletion almost like within one day after being approved, without letting more readers have the chance to add their knowledge in? 3) Notability - 1) Tripadvisor: what i understand is tripadvisor do screen and have a strict procedure of allowing postings; on what basis are reviews considered non-reliable? 2) the awards listed including HPB and BCA - these are two govt bodies in Singapore, then how should it be for it to be notable?

Alot of times, i see them in print but not listed on website, as such, then how can i prove their notability? I sincerely seek your kind understanding that i am not speaking on behalf or for on the organisation, it is more of a sincerity and determination to understand how i can write an article to ensure that it is notable? I believe alot of contributors who gets their articles rejected have the same question in their minds. Sincerely, we are trying to contribute to wikipedia because we have benefitted from it, and thus like to share our knowledge, but if it gets rejected and we do not know how we can rectify it, then we will just leave with this question forever in the mind. It is not just about one article, it is for many more articles to come that i write this in good faith. Hope this can be considered. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have left some advice on my talk page in response to your query there about this subject. However, I want to add that printed information can be used as references - it doesn't always have to be websites - Identifying reliable sources specifically states The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet..

Further, the verificability policy states The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability... Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.

So, if it is independent (i.e. not a press release, not an advert, not something written by the company), at a reliable source, it can still be used as a reference. If you could give some examples (here or on my talk page), I could give you more specific advice about specific references. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phatomsteve

Thanks for your replies, have noted them. Would like to seek your advise on these then: i have found some print articles which i gather from their website: These articles i believe are scanned copies from magazine and not from direct source unless proven otherwise: http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/59.html An article by The Edge magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/60.html An article by Travellution magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/48.html An article by TODAY newspaper;

2 other articles i manage to find: http://trendsideas.com/ViewArticle.aspx?article=14665&region=23 An article from Trends magazine; http://www.ourpagesonline.co.uk/flipBook/index.asp?ID=192 An article from Upward curve magazine;

Will these be better? I am trying hard to look for more sources, maybe in the meanwhile you can let me know if im on the right track. Thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)— Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion on these sources is on the AfD's Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Treetops Executive Residences PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is about a long term hotel / service apartment for business travellers in Singapore. Highly unusual circumstances would be needed to give such an establishment the kind of historical, cultural, or technical significance to become an encyclopedia subject. Minor trade awards (HPB Silver Award for 2010) do not meet that standard. Article is shot through with advertising: 60 percent of the project's land is landscaped with over 200 exotic plant species with green foliage all year round... Treetops provides a resort-style living in the heart of the city. Supermarkets, cinemas and the subway are round the corner and guests can easily commute to offices in the central business district with the daily complimentary shuttle bus service.... It became the first serviced residences in Singapore to include 'green' features in its premises to inculcate healthy living practices so as to create an ingenious style of enhanced living environment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pardon my lack of understanding. Does it mean if i rephrase it, it will be better? Im sorry if i have written it so much seemingly like an ad. I will amend on that, but for other reasons i do not quite understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Mandarin_Singapore - why does this article be fine though it was put up for deletion as well? Is that any signifance for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Centennial_Singapore - this article has listed on its restaurants and categories of rooms, and the only references made were to their website, why do they not have any issues either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damenlou_Hotel - this article as well, significance of it?

Apologies, i hope you can understand i am not trying to involve other articles, but sincerely i do not understand whats the difference? I am not writing for the company like i mentioned, the style of writing my article was with references to these articles are with no issues but i truly do not understand why then these articles are ok?

I hope i am not seen as challenging anything, i am just confused. I sincerely hope you can shed some light on these so that i will know how i should write my article and avoid any unnecessary debates on it. I believe that is the least to everyone who writes an article hope for. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)— Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've not looked at those 3 articles, as they have no real bearing on the discussion about this article. It may be that they are better referenced than the Treetops article, in which case they are not a good comparison; it may be that they are not referenced or inadequately referenced - but again, that does not make a good comparison. It may be that they should be deleted - but we are not discussing those articles. We are discussing the Treetops article, and whether that should be kept or not. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 18 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Grand Jin[edit]

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

Non-notable album; when it was turned into a redirect to artist's article, original editor reverted with no explanation. No evidence of, or claim to, notability. Article had previously been deleted after PROD in Dec 2008 with reason "'Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums.'" Nothing seems to have changed since then. PamD (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Killiondude (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:08, 3 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) 01:00, 6 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jin (rapper) as suggested, no evidence of independent notability. Sandstein 05:12, 14 June 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 Maumere. v/r - T P 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bunda Segala bangsa, Nilo[edit]

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

Article on a statue in Flores, Indonesia. Uncited, and a search reveals no reliable sources to prove notability per the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be renamed, but does appear to be a fairly significant pilgrimage site and a pretty prominent statue. Widening the search using the English translations as well does produce some more information. Nothing hugely significant, but I would say enough to keep the article as a stub, which is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? Information? Do a Google search. That will confirm its existence. After that it's a judgement call as to whether it's notable or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:EXIST. Saying that sources exist is generally not considered enough; linking to them would be a much better approach, while saying that something is proven to exist does not make it notable by default. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's a judgement call as to whether it's notable or not. I've made that call, so have you. Remember nothing on Wikipedia is usually set in stone. Too many editors now make the mistake of assuming everything is governed by rules. Not true. If it was, we wouldn't be having AfD debates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, if everything was set in stone AfD would have been disbanded, as once proposed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 9 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) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noting there is a church not statue of the same name. no significant coverage [20]. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete. If it can be merged with Maumere then it would be better than deleting it. If it can't be merged, I agree with deleting it. Rxlxm (talk) 00:34, 23 June 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 without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Article can be recreated or undeleted per a request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linc Star Records[edit]

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

This small record label doesn't seem to be notable. Google search turns up a lot of junk. Raymie (t • c) 18:42, 30 May 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) 01:09, 6 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:55, 14 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pagcor Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no official information of PAGCOR, or any reliable party about this building. They do not have a particular plan for this building, f.e. which construction company will be involved, when construction will start, what the estimated time of completion will be. The building is not included in recent information of PAGCOR. PAGCOR Tower is nothing more than a short-lived proposal. The visions of this huge building appeared in magazines in 2008 and have been around since on forums. A short-lived proposal is not notable. This article was kept the first not because it's noteworthy, but because some ip's were frustrating the deletion process. Leo db (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont see a real reason for deletion. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:23, 10 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) 01:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If all so called short lived proposals are not notable, then articles like Sky City 1000, X-Seed 4000, Nakheel Tower, Russia Tower and many of the articles linked to this template (Proposed Supertall Skyscrappers) (which are either visions or buildings which never got constructed/finished due to certain issues like finances) should have been deleted as well. PAGCOR Tower WAS supposed to be built until the Philippine Government (through PAGCOR) decided to scrap it as well as some other projects for the PAGCOR City megaproject. Rxlxm (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This generated significant coverage in the Philippines, not only in the aforementioned magazines but in leading news channels long after 2008. See Reforms in PAGCOR from ABS-CBN news for an example. PAGCOR (Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation) itself is controversial, from accusations of corruption to the general atmosphere of distrust from Filipinos due to its apparent excesses and its purpose (it handles organized gambling, a controversial subject in a predominantly Catholic country). References to previous deletion process is also not quite an acceptable reason for proposing another deletion.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:58, 20 June 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) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thin PHP Framework[edit]

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

open source software lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 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) 01:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:17, 15 June 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) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competiţia Zece[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Competiţia Zece (3rd nomination)

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

No credible claim of notability as found through independent sources exists here. We have the competition's own website, a couple of self-published sites, and passing mention in a newspaper (which is now a dead link). Nothing approaches the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previously nominated under a different title, here and here.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional, non-existent as far as secondary sources go. Dahn (talk) 12:33, 9 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) 01:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources lack notability, and as said above, the article seems to be self-promotional. Rxlxm (talk) 02:53, 21 June 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/redirect to Pichilemu City Council. Notability has not been established but the content would enhance the target. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu city hall[edit]

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

A building of essentially no architectural or historical significance, serving as town hall for a city of 12,000 (that's what? 200th largest in Chile?), and barely mentioned even in local sources. How exactly is this notable? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Pichilemu, which is little more than an outline at present. Pichilemu City Council is also short and could be merged there too. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building is notable. There have been even studies (thesis linked) on the building. There is probably not much information around because the commune's official name (Ilustre Municipalidad de Pichilemu) is almost the same to the used for the building (Municipalidad de Pichilemu). However, another thing to take into account is that Pichilemu, even if it isn't a not-so-large city (it is a city under Chilean law: every populated place with more than 3,000 inhabitants is a city), Pichilemu is the capital of the Cardenal Caro Province. Just sayin'. Diego Grez (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the thesis a doctoral thesis? Per WP:RS, that's the only generally acceptable type of thesis for sourcing articles.
- Sure, it's legally a city, but by any ordinary standard, a pretty small one. And yes, it's a provincial capital, but so are similarly-sized cities like Ardahan, Phongsali or Murska Sobota, but their city halls are also probably not notable. Neither do we have articles on the city halls of large American cities like Phoenix, Jacksonville, Indianapolis or El Paso. (I'm using American cities as an example because the US is probably our most extensively-covered country.) What makes a town hall notable is neither the status nor the size of the city; it's history and/or architectural significance. That has yet to be conclusively demonstrated here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 8 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) 01:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Postdlf. A decent article is anyway better than three stubs. --Elekhh (talk) 09:35, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debiganj Girls' High School[edit]

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

DePRODed. Article has been abandoned with no attempts to provide informative content. Contains only a title and an infobox. Searches reveal no reliable sources or content for expansion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Dolphin (t) 12:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the arguments for keeping high school articles are given in the essay WP:NHS. Bangladesh schools, of which we have too poor coverage anyway, have a notoriously poor presence on the Internet and the absence of reliable sources on Google doesn't mean they don't exist. So, to avoid systemic bias, we should await a search for local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Raymie (t • c) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a long-established principle that secondary schools are notable, wherever they may be and however short their article may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article has erased all content except the AfD notification. See diff. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the content and warned the editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 19 June 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Nick Candy[edit]

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

Business people - troublesome article - often attacked - protection refused at WP:RFPP - not notable companies and as such not notable person/brothers - Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The resaon given for protection / deletion by Off2riorob is not accurate: Off2riorob objects to factual and verifiable information being inserted in the article that does not reflect well upon its subject persons, Off2riorob preferring only comment that sets the subject persons in a positive light. Noted that Off2riorob persistently removes this information, yet WikiID300, the contributor that inserts the information, does not edit any other information, which tells the story.

The insertion that Off2riorob objects to is:

Christian Candy, through his vehicle Solomon Capital, expanded his operations in 2010 into the mining sector. Solomon and owns a 65% majority ^[1]of the ordinary shares of Metals Exploration Plc (AIM: MTL)^[2], a gold and molybdenum miner operating in the Philippines. On 23 July, 2010 Solomon made a 13 pence per share bid for Metals Exploration Plc.

During this contentious bid, viewed as not recognising MTL's potential in the view of its CEO at the time of the offer^[3] a written submission was made by certain minority Independent Shareholders, who regarded the Solomon Capital offer as opportunistically low, to The Takeover Panel^[4]. This submission alleged that an illegal “Concert Party” comprising Solomon Capital and others was in existence during the bid period in breach of Rule 9 of the Takeover Code^[5]. The Takeover Panel then blocked Solomon from making further purchases of MTL shares in the market^[6]. In the face of these very serious allegations Solomon effectively abandoned its full takeover bid in 2011, entering into a subscription and shareholders agreement^[7] with, inter alia, Metals Exploration Plc and certain Shareholders. This agreement extraordinarily allowed shareholders who had sold to Solomon Capital at 13p to recover their shares at the same price, and provided for certain additional protections for minority shareholders against actions that might be taken by Solomon. Subsequently, it being satisfied the dispute was settled, no further action was taken by the Takeover Panel^[8].

Today Nick is CEO of Candy & Candy and Christian is owner of the Guernsey-based investment company CPC Group. Christian Candy resigned as a director from Candy & Candy in March 2011 after two years of loss making financial performance: the firm recorded a pre-tax loss of £889,735 to 30 June, 2010, with turnover down from £19m to £8.6m, and having lost £547,325 the previous year^[9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiID300 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very prominent in their field (with which I have no professional connection). Regularly mentioned in the mainstream press in the UK (a search for "Candy brothers" produces hits on articles from five of the UK's ten national dailies in the first two pages alone, most of which are substantial articles entirely devoted to them). Involved in some of the most high profile development projects in one of the world's top three cities. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:23, 13 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) 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work and fixing, but despite my normally deletionist tendencies, I vote to keep, largely because the nominator has failed to provide a cogent, valid reason for the article to be deleted. However, if it is renominated for deletion properly I will be more than willing to reconsider. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About 40,000 ghits, well referenced section above, and the fact that the nominator requested protection before deletion indicates that this may be a way for the nominator to get rid of a "troublesome" article. Clearly notable individuals. MacMed^talk _stalk 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note added after this closure, an edit conflict but I wanted to add it anyway - Although I appreciate this user above reverting their closure on my request their position in regards to their replacing their keep closure with a keep comment may be a little tainted. 40,000 ghits - so what - google hits are worthless in asserting notability - If supporters want to protect the artcile or even edit it to make it decent in any way that would be appreciated - not a single supporter has edited this awful article at all in an attempt to improve it. keep this defaming crap is the support here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08 am, Today (UTC+1)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boonaa Mohammed[edit]

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

Notable? Not sure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Wikipedia's notability policy, the topic should have gained significant notice by reliable sources. He was mentioned at the TEDx forum website and in the Windsor Star article which was cited.Neophaze (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Although a stub, I believe there are enough sources to keep it afloat. But, the article would have to be expanded before meeting a full Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:39, 9 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) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes several criteria of WP:BIO by having won the CBC award and by being covered in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 14 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Beck[edit]

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

Much less notable still than James Lentini, who is very non-notable to begin with (as was pointed out at that AFD). Incarnatus (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This ref says he created one of the top 10 cultural events in Pittsburgh in 2001. Article needs serious work, but it appears to be somewhat notable.--v/r - T P 00:35, 14 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) 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Review by Sequenza 21 and his music accepted/included on Pandora Internet Radio are notable. Two independent reviews appear at the Pandora site as well. Scot Johnston (talk) 15:38, 21 June 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) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Jurado[edit]

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

I can't read spanish, but it doesnt appear the subject "starred" in the TV series listed on IMDb; rather that he had minor, but named, roles. Refs all go to social media sites. v/r - T P 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion. The author Prepkidlv is Sergio Jurado. De728631 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotion. Not notable. JRheic (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion (and badly written at that), doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobio. NN. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 June 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. v/r - T P 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Bosporus[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 00:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is what Turkey is the best in the world at. This professional wrestler easily meets WP:GNG. There are numerous hits on Google. It wouldn't be hard to add references to prove WP:GNG and this wrestler should not have been listed for AfD. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Google hits do not include reliable third party sources that I can see. Please add them if you can find them. Nikki♥311 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see why sourcing may be harder, but he does appear notable. Like David Hasselhoff, "big in germany." A 2007 AfD on de.wikipedia also resulted in a keep. (See de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/18._Juni_2007#Murat_Bosporus_.28bleibt.29.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice analogy. :-) Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That AFD is from June 2007, when standards weren't nearly as strict. I don't speak German, so I couldn't read the keep/delete arguments, but I do know this: I looked at the German article, and of the four references, two are Wikipedia articles, one appears to be a blog, and the last one is an interview with a wrestling fan site. None of those help establish notability. Nikki♥311 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those Germans love to delete articles!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my prior commentary. Not convinced it merits deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:45, 22 June 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. Withdrawn and no delete !votes. (WP:NAC). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schwarzmann[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS indicia of notability of this person. The article has zero third party refs. Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of several notable bands. Sources added.--Michig (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig. Thanks for the addition of the off-line sources. Just one question (as I may be open to withdrawing, based on what you found) -- if a band is notable, I was under the belief that it is not necessarily the case that each of its members is notable. What is our criteria for a band member himself (e.g., do we need RSs discussing him specifically, and substantially so?). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well he have a criterion of WP:MUSIC (#6): "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." - given that Schwarzmann has been a member of at least four independently notable ensembles, and we have reliable sources to at least have a stub that passes WP:V, I think we should keep this.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Based on Michig's off-line sources, which now appear as refs in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the creator is allowed to vote? And I've noted the nomination has been withdrawn, too, but I wanted to ask a question: The fact that the claims for notability are unsourced - could I suggest that that isn't reason to delete the article? That it shouldn't be deleted until the unsourced claims were challenged? If the claims are controversial, they could be challenged, if they seem unlikely, they could be challenged. I know they could be challenged for sport, so the article might be deleted anyway. Still, as a general view... any opinions? Thanks by the way for improving the article by adding sources!--Odd M. Nilsen (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the AFD to be such a challenge. In any event, with BLPs there is even greater sensitivity than normal to unsourced material, and it may generally be deleted by editors in the absence of sourcing. That, of course, did not happen here. As you create articles, I sould suggest the best course, to avoid such problems, would be to source the content that you add. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close now that nominator has withdrawn. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 16 June 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. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kobako[edit]

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

Not notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though this stub needs expanding, the topic is notable. See Kogo and Kobako as 'Objets de Vitrine' in Europe during the Second Half of the 19th Century in Art of Asia, 2006 and the book A sprinkling of gold: the lacquer box collection of Elaine Ehrenkranz published by the Newark Museum in 1983. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To my opinion notability should be shown in the article itself. Now it looks like a common tupperware plastic box... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Of course the article should be expanded, but that's what we do with stubs about notable topics. We expand them and reference them, or tag them for improvement. We don't delete short articles about notable topics. I suggest that you read WP:BEFORE. Although those procedures are not mandatory, I think they are very wise, and save time by minimizing this sort of discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is the duty of the author to make clear that a subject is notable. It is not up to the new page patroller to start searching if a subject is possible notable.

But by now the article is good enough so the discussion about the article van be closed.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article and added six references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree completely with Cullen. I’m mystified why anyone would even think of deleting this article while so many currently on Wikipedia cry out for deletion! Right church here, wrong pew!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has ten references, and I've explained three related alternate meanings derived from the original concept Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure and keep Article impoved to proper, meaningful article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 09:01, 16 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing Madonna[edit]

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

vandalism that is going to be painted over Yotemordis (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please present an argument for deletion that is in accordance with the deletion policy? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds as nominator has not advanced a policy-based argument for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 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) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renal Fibrosis[edit]

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

Looks a bit like copyvio. Very strange to start an article with a external link. Duplicate Detector Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entire purpose of article is likely to house spammed links / refspam to Shijiazhuang Kidney Disease Hospital, spam report here. --CliffC (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as with any "real cause" of any condition without WP:MEDRS. It may have been around too long to qualify as recent for CSD A10 (recently created articles duplicating a topic), but since it is purported to be the "real cause" of a condition covered by an article, consider speedy under that criterion.Novangelis (talk) 02:38, 15 June 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 keep, nominator has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and this nomination is clearly flawed. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Franchetti[edit]

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

Non notable bio Yotemordis (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already contains a solid New York Times reference on this composer. A Google Books search shows that he has been discussed in several books, including one book devoted to his compositions. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One minute on the Google News Archive shows over 40 years of coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 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) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Fees[edit]

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

businessman with insufficient notability to meet criteria. references are blog posts or links to companies or organizations without reliable sources. Warfieldian (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) This contribution is not meant to describe a notable individual as much as to correctly reference the both the organizations and individuals involved in the founding of Facebook which is referenced within the article and external links. There are several individuals listed within the article which are all directly connected to Fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeeditor (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 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, v/r - T P 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:N. There aren't any solid references such as publications or TV station mentions. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:59, 14 June 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 per WP:CSD#G11 by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Youth Through Educational Scholarships[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a non notable scholarship organisation as reinforced by a mere 3 gnews hits [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 30 May 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) 01:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:23, 6 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Seems like a blatant promotional page. It even has a link to donate. The page was started by user:Hytes, H.Y.T.E.S. Helping Youth Through Educational Scholarship. I've tagged the article for WP:CSD#G11. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:20, 14 June 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.