< 4 June	6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stabile[edit]

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

My rationale from November 2010 stands. I don't know where this content came from, but as best I can tell it isn't either of the books cited, which don't in fact support any such thing as this. This biography appears to have been extrapolated from what the books do say, which is not much about this person, and not enough for even a stub biography. Again, as with the other biographies (There were several that were supposedly sourced from these books, but turned out not to be supported by them when I actually looked at the books themselves. See Michael "Spider" Gianco (AfD discussion) for one that I put through AFD before I realized how many of these falsely sourced biographies of purported organized criminals there were.), there are no other sources that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article should be deleted again, Stabile does not pass WP:BIO (Crime). --Vic49 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources for this anywhere. Virtually everything on the internet about him is a copy of one or other of the past versions of this Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Out of Jimmy's Head[edit]

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

Clearly, this article has no sources and contains OR. JJ98 (Talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTIONS, Can anyone tell me the criteria for a list of characters in a TV series getting it's own page. If the original series is notable, and is his characters, it usually has a list of those characters, particularly if that list would make the main page too big. What special thing does this page lack that other lists of characters in a show have? If it's simply to long or has OR, then tag it for that, don't delete it. That's not justification for deletion of an article, it's justification for FIXING the article. Mathewignash (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notability of a list of elements of work is not inherited from an entirely different article. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited.) If there is sufficient coverage of the collection of individual characters discussed independently of the series itself, then that collection of characters merits an article. If there isn't, it doesn't. — chro • man • cer 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, See, I know you can't hold up other pages as proof this one should exist, but I see many list of characters in a TV shows without sources that are not being deleted. Mostly I consider them just an offshoot of the main TV series page. I'd figured if you had a notable TV series, the list of characters was justified to exist simply if that list was too big to put in the main article. What sort of source is needed here? Simply something like a book on TV series casts or a link to the show page listing the characters? Or a repeat of the sources for the main tv series article? Because I have not found any examples of other list of TV show characters that have the sort fo sources you want. List of Gilligan's Island characters List of people involved with Babylon 5 List of notable guest stars on M*A*S*H. See it's not that there are other cast lists without the sources you seem to want, but it seem EVERY cast list I have found lacks them. I can't find a single one WITH the sources described, so I can't really tell what sort of sources you'd want. Mathewignash (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, all plot summary, and pretty much all WP:OR. No coverage that I can find of these characters discussed independently of the show, which already has an informative article which this information doesn't improve upon. — chro • man • cer 22:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-universe notability. Unsourced OR plot. --Crusio (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTJUSTPLOT - this is plot only coverage. --Anthem 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unneeded content fork and unnecessary split of Out of Jimmy's Head as the subject of the list does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, the subject can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work, so it is also unsuitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. The article is completely unreferenced, which means that the content is original research by synthesis at best, so there is no valid reason to keep the article. Jfgslo (talk) 17:15, 11 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 Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Committee of Lancaster County[edit]

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

Per past AFD consensus, we don't normally want separate articles about each individual local chapter of a national political party, and there's no real indication of independent notability here to suggest that this particular one should be the exception. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG which indicates that local units of national organizations are normally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the past, we have only kept the biggest, most notable local political machines, and have deleted all the rest. This committee is a local, non-machine-type political orgaqnization for a moderately-size county, one of thousands across the country. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania per usual practice for local chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 12 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) 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screamer (food)[edit]

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

Article about a commercial product sold by one single general store in a small town, with no properly sourced indication of actual notability. I suppose it's possible that similar products exist elsewhere — but even if that's true, then we should have one article about the generic name for it and then redirect this there, rather than creating a separate article about each individual name for the same thing. And if that's not the case, then delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only source that has been provided is a comment on Foursquare (social network) which doesn't provide a definition for this food product and isn't a reliable source anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I PRODed this three days ago ([1]) but I removed the tag myself and tagged it as possibly lacking notability instead. Here's why: [2]. It's possible that "screamer" may in fact be the "generic" name for this product, and it appears to exist outside of "one single general store in a small town". But truly reliable sources confirming its notability? I couldn't find any of those. Seems to be just blogs and forums talking about it. Great. Now I'm hungry. Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice for recreation if this becomes a bigger thing. The screamer is a combination of slurpie and ice cream. It may be known by other names, but I was unable to uncover any in a quick set of searches. As a screamer, it appears that this concoction is known in the Canadian provinces of BC and Alberta. The only coverage in reliable sources that I was able to find was this article which is from an Edmonton, Alberta alternative weekly paper. Many blogs attest to the deliciousness of a screamer from Danny's Market in Richmond, BC. Although others say Grab 'n' Go convenience. The Calgary Zoo sells them in their Dairy Bar. It's clearly a regional treat, available in more than just a single store, but it is a treat that has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In particular, the assertion that it originated at the Woodsdale General Store is not supported by a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 10 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 Left Behind: The Kids. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken (Left Behind: The Kids)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article does not have sources cited per WP:RS, and the prod was declined on the basis that similar articles exist. But WP:OSE usually covers this argument as baseless for keep. Phearson (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This completely mischaracterises the reason why I pulled the Prod. When you have around a dozen essentially identical articles on the same series of books, ie Left Behind: The Kids, it makes sense to approach them in the same way; that is if we are trying to build a coherent encyclopaedia rather than score policy points. What I said in my edit summary was "a number of books in this series have similar articles. It is not good practice to delete an odd one. Better to take them all together to decide what to do - ie delete or source or merge". I would add that there is no indication that the nominator has followed the steps in WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a short plot summary into Left Behind: The Kids and do the same with the other books in the series. Though the series is notable I haven't been able to track down the necessary reviews to make the individual books notable. However, the main page needs plot summaries and these can be easily sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 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) 00:02, 29 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:TerriersFan. The series is notable. The book doesn't appear to be, but it's hard to sift through all the hits for such a generic name and determine what might confer it. — chro • man • cer 22:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series article. Current article is not written nearly well enough to be merged directly, so whomever merges will need to clean it up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 9 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 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Haze (cannabis)[edit]

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

Article has become non-encyclopedic, not notable, and unreferenced after recent removal of non-contextual content Mjpresson (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:Nominated for deletion. After removal of non-contextual content mostly related to a type of "LSD" with this name and no mention of cannabis, the article has no encyclopedic content and most likely never will as there is not really an official cannabis strain with this name, it's a colloquial term.--Mjpresson (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete (see below) - I'm not sure what content could be included, but the good amount of book hits suggests that such content does exist, even if it is only to state that it is widespread colloquial term and not an actual strain. Even if no such content can be produced at all, a merge and redirect to LSD seems in order - frankieMR (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article that consists of one challenged sentence?--Mjpresson (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about these "book hits", Patitomr. I went through 3 Google Books pages without seeing any reference to Purple Haze in the context of cannabis.--Mjpresson (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the search I tried [3]. I'm not familiar with the subject so I can't say whether it is related to cannabis or not, but my point was that even if it isn't the moniker "Purple Haze" seems to be notable if only as a subcultural fabrication - frankieMR (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the fact that you voted to keep this article is puzzling and even nonsensical. Have you seen the article?--Mjpresson (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is factually wrong then it must be replaced and sourced. Now, if what you mean is that no such content is attainable then merge and redirect to LSD, but I doubt that there is nothing to be said about the concept and its usage - frankieMR (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge you to find that. The article is specifically titled Purple Haze (cannabis), while you are approaching it as a general colloquial term.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a rename might be required. I went through the books and I still think that there is definitely content to build an article with. Here are some links relating it to cannabis [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], and these relating it to LSD [9] [10] [11] [12]. There were more hits in scholar, but it is difficult since you can only see the abstract, so I only brought this one [13]. The snippet that google pulled it with was "... Continued inbreeding of the original favorable crosses resulted in some of the “super-sativas” of the 1970s, such as Original Haze, Purple Haze, Pollyanna, Eden Gold, Three Way, Maui Wowie, Kona Gold, and Big Sur Holy Weed. 11. THE INTRODUCTION OF INDICA ..." - frankieMR (talk) 23:52, 22 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) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article slightly. I hope it is in order - frankie (talk) 09:30, 29 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some of my students know what purple haze is, the same is not a notable neologism. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of the references given above can really be used as they are just mentions from non-citable sources. I seriously tried to incorporate them all but it just doesn't work, if you look at them. Again, this article pertains to cannabis per its title, so the numerous references to LSD are not pertinent here and doesn't belong in the discussion, in my opinion. Of course there was probably a strain with this name, so what? There is a strain called Cat Piss and another called Charlie Sheen so do they qualify to have 2-sentence, unreferenced articles about them?--Mjpresson (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it can be merged and redirected - frankie (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie, that makes no sense. Merge what to what? Redirect what to what? Preposterous, I say.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I got the terms figured wrong. When I said redirect I mean what is currently done by the dab. By merge I mean that the content around the term is not spurious, so that it should be included at the relevant targets - frankie (talk) 23:33, 6 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) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barkey[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. There are two citations currently on the article. The first is to a user generated geneology site (ancestry.ca) which is not a reliable source. The second is to a passing mention in a book, not enough to establish notability. I have been able to turn up several more hits on other user generated content geneology sites, which do not appear to be reliable sources. Barring any significant reliable source coverage, it appears the subject is not notable. I am happy to withdraw the nomination should reliable source coverage be introduced by someone with better luck turning it up. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searching also turned up nothing. The only other potential reliable source I found was what appears to be a one line mention in "The Mennonite encyclopedia: a comprehensive reference work on the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement, Volume 1" but all I can see is the snippet provided by Google books (see here). Nevertheless, these brief listing are hardly enough to meet notability requirements. France3470 (talk) 22:58, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean up the article a little (make it feel less like a family tree book) and to clarify the references. The Barkey family is clearly a "prominent" Altona family (as noted by Altona historian Joe Nighswander), but not of the stature of Abraham Stouffer. I'm open to either keeping the article or deletion.

Delete Nice try, but there is no notability here. He lived, he raised a family, he led a local church, that's about it. Google Books finds only passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 12 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. , with leave to discuss a merge on the article's talk page, per the usual processes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuman music[edit]

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

Essentially a permastub. Has very little content, and not all the content of the page deals with the topic. Suggest deletion or merge to Native American music Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It obviously needs to be fleshed out but no reason to delete. I can furnish more referenced material for the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RJH (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good job improving the article! Their music gets coverage. Putting it into a category with others based on ethnicity would be wrong. Not every tribe uses the same instruments nor makes the same type of music. Dream Focus 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: would probably make more sense as a well-written paragraph within Native American music, rather than as a jumpy series of 1-3 sentence sections in the current stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:19, 10 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) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driver (band)[edit]

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

Article about a Canadian rock band which is entirely unverifiable as written; with the exception of MySpace profiles, every single "reference" here is to the front splash page of an organization or media outlet mentioned in the article, and not to any content which actually verifies the existence or the notability of the band. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the person who created this is the same person who created the article about the artist management company that now represents one of the band's former members (and even that article is skirting the edge of being deletable as WP:SPAM.) I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard by actually tracking down real references which actually demonstrate the band's notability — but right now, it's a pretty unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd categorize this on the "it's spam" side. There's no coverage in reliable sources about the band. There's only vague assertions of notability. There is no indication of the band being signed to a label. There's not even any indication they ever released an album. None of the claims in the article are backed by reliable sources. There's no doubt that the Hamilton Spectator is a reliable source. But there needs be a proper citation and not just a vague wave of the hand a link to the front page of the Spec's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No extensive coverage in reliable sources, therefore notability not established. Note that the reference section has been "padded" - many of the sites don't mentin the band at all, such as the ESPN2link and the Wushu Association. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:37, 11 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) 23:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Johnston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Single event/news blip; not notable. tedder (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, not every shooting is notable, and I can find neither significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG, or a reason why this is significant per WP:EVENT. Quasihuman | Talk 21:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sad but not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- But what a depressing story! SLC800 (talk) 12:57, 12 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) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mornington Tenpin[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any notability, let alone significant coverage in independent sources, as per WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article about Mornington is correct information. As a former employee there (and Moonah as well), I played at the centre, I'm also longtime friends with two former managers of the facility and also, a lot of information provided comes courtesy of the 1992 STTBA (Southern Tasmanian Tenpin Bowling Association) end of season report from that year. By the way, Charles Martin Construction were a well known business in Hobart during the 1980s who built and ran the centre for tax purposes, they had a manager who oversaw the centre manager and made decisions on their behalf. They unfortunately went broke in late 1989. Forfuxake (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about accuracy, but about notability and verifiability.The-Pope (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I have no doubt that all the information in the article is correct, simply being true does not confer notability. The article is presently unreferenced and I can't find any reliable sources discussing Mornington Tenpin, let alone any that could be considered the significant coverage that is required to pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable business, fails WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. A completely useless history to anyone not involved this suburban facility. Would hardly think the Tasmanian tenpin bowling scene gets any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. St Anselm (talk) 04:54, 8 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 against recreation in...er...2050 :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population in 2050[edit]

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

Clearly, the title is wrong (this article is not a "list" at all), but I'm not sure it can survive even with a different title. The references are not properly cited. It is impossible to tell what is original research / synthesis, and what is actually from the sources. The author also added the same content to 2050, where it might be better there. Singularity42 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is about 40 years early. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't know because its not 2050 yet--Superlightoftruth (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and because this isn't actually a list of countries by population in 2050 anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is WP:CRYSTAL to even list which countries will exist in 2050, much less how big they will be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An unsourced article needs sourcing, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no accurate source on this topic for almost 40 years; we need not hold onto the article until then. If we don't salt it, the article can be created when sources exist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clearer on that argument:

The title does not state that it is a list of countries by projected population.
The article does not contain a list of countries in any order.
One could say that it could be a viable article if it just had different title and different content - why yes, it could be Presidential campaigns of Pat Paulsen. Any article could be viable if we just changed the title and the content.
Even if it were to be given the title reflecting the concept you seem to be leaning toward (on projected population), we are then stuck with the question of whose projection, as there are various ones, and we cannot call any of them to be accurate. And we cannot just list the various projections for the countries, since we are called to list the countries in the order of said population, and the various sources would require conflicting orders. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 7 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} 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable character. JJ98 (Talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a Major Character on a Major children's television show on a Major childrens network. Hardly non-notable. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion once let alone again. As a quote from the last AfD:

Keep. I mean, c'mon. Jimmy Neutron has one. Spongebob Squarepants has one. Why not Ed?
— 989 RVD

It also meets WP:FICT. Bailo26 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the series is unquestionably notable, that doesn't mean that the individual characters, including the title characters, are independently notable. There needs to be significant coverage of the character in reliable sources. WP:FICT does not exempt the article from WP:GNG. I am not finding such sources that address this character specifically and indeed the article is completely unreferenced except to primary sources. The existence of similar articles for other fictional characters does not argue for the existence of this one. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When this articles subject was up for deletion the last time it was a snow keep basically. so dont see how a character can go from notable to non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. JJ98 (Talk) 22:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your argument is invalid in this particular situation and has absolutely nothing to do with BabbaQ's statement that i can see. I don't know if you've actually read the Deletion of articles section of WP:OSE but i suggest you re/read it. Particularly this section which states:

WP:OSE: —
Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article.

I do not mean to get into an argument, I just cannot see how you can write a response simply stating that other stuff exists. It makes little or no sense to me. Bailo26 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice that, there a bunch of non-notable characters from the television series, for example, I've nominated Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus 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) 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious. Despite earlier AfD (in 2007!!) still not a single reliable source. Meaning that all we have at this point is pure original research and opinion. Without sources, this is a clear fail of WP:GNG and (probably even more importantly) WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about him would only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Furthermore, the article provides no reference, which makes the content original research, nothing worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 17:04, 11 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) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberry Island (McArthur Lake)[edit]

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

This is an entirely unsourced (and unsourceable) article about a small and non-notable island in a small and just barely notable lake; prod was disputed (albeit without explanation or referencing improvements), so I'm bringing it here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation subject to WP:RS. Geographic features are generally held to be notable enough to sustain articles, but this article is unreferenced, and reads like it may be a hoax article. I'm not familiar with the geography of Ontario, so am AGF that the island may exist and may have been created by the dumping of landfill. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified. I even wondered about McArthur Lake, which was created by the same user, but the lake does appear to exist.[14] However I could find absolutely no Google references to a Blueberry Island in this lake, except for the Wikipedia articles. There is absolutely nothing about this supposed island at Google News or Google Books. I wonder if we should delete as unverified the information at McArthur Lake about Blueberry Island? --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 12 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) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Muth[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion - originally nominated by The-Pope (talk · contribs): "Junior footballer, who, according the refs provided, has not yet played in a fully professional league, nor for his country at senior level." The tag was removed by an unregistered user. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original PRODder. If you can show me that he's played in Liga 1 of the Romanian league or for the senior national team or another fully pro league, or he has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then I'll switch to keep... but nothing looks like that yet. The-Pope (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 8 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Neutrality (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Here!!![edit]

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

I can find no third-party reliable sources supporting that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I am changing my nomination to speedy delete as the claims are clearly not credible. Tagged as such. Singularity42 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 5 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 Sajjad Afghani. This seems nonobjectionable even to those advocating deletion. Sandstein 09:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of March 10th, 2011[edit]

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

Not every terrorist's death is a notable event. I do not believe this meets WP:EVENT at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Action of March 10th, 2011 and Delete. The event is not significant enough to deserve its own article. utcursch | talk 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:GHITS and fails WP:EVENT. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sajjad Afghani may be notable, but I don't think that his death requires a separate article. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sajjad Afghani. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" so is likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anything that is cited can be merged to Sajjad Afghani, although that article is also in need of some WP:RS to establish its notability. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nick-D 216.105.64.140 (talk) 02:53, 13 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 09:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amezcua Bio Disc[edit]

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

This article presents the subject as a pseudoscience. While I am sure it is, I can find no reliable sources to back up the claim. The link provided by the author on the talk page is only for general water-related pseudosciences, and not this particular type of product. At the moment, I do not beleive this article meets WP:FRINGE. I am willing to withdraw my nomination if a reliable source can be identified - that is, a source that meets WP:RS, and states that this type of product is a pseudoscience. Singularity42 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a consumer alert site for pseudoscientific scams. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 13 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 : Speedily redirected to Battle of Orléans. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orléans (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Articel is a double from Battle of Orléans Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:55, 5 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 per CSD G4. This version of the article doesn't even have any sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odaine Démar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. The article meets WP:CSD#G4, in my opinion, but speedy deletion was contested by an IP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be CSD'd. He still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a stub and not wholely sufficient for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 08:00, 9 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 List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. Kilo T 15:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DarkKnightmon[edit]

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

No independent sources, no out-of-universe notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Other than a major character, there are sources.Fractyl (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. He's one of the major villains in this series. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep: There are reliable sources, and there is notability to the character. Although the article does need some improvement. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters for lack of coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:TheFarix. In and of itself (himself?), subject of article doesn't meet the WP:GNG or have enough independent secondary coverage to merit an article. Most of the article is WP:OR and would have to be removed, bringing the article to sub-stub level unless it could be merged properly. — chro • man • cer 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TheFarix. If there really are sources, then they must be found. We can't just automatically assume they exist. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters, per above. The referenced info will actully help the character list better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. A redirect is an acceptable alternative to deletion since the character is already in List of Digimon Xros Wars characters and, given its notoriety in the plot and a simple article title, it is a plausible search term, but, in order to generate consensus, I favor a merge instead. Jfgslo (talk) 15:45, 11 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 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conspirituality[edit]

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

This has been here for a couple of years without any real evidence of notability or decent references. While the group have created some interesting work, they do not appear to have received sufficient coverage to justify an encyclopedia article. The Allmusic link used as a reference is to a discography, which lists only two EPs. There are no reviews and no biography there. Michig (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of the article's references, upon examination, actually say nothing about Conspirituality at all. And as already noted, there is no indication of the group's notability, referenced or otherwise. Doing a search for references, the group clearly has some local fame, but I can't find evidence of anything larger than that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the references are not up to scratch. Delete it. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 19:00, 11 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) 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jossy[edit]

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

Delete. No reliable independent sources included or found. Notability not established, fails WP:MUSICIAN. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google trends goes on about another Jossy with no mention of this one. Nasnema Chat 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent sources included or found. No sigh of relevance as a musician. Agora (talk) 16:42, 6 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Beaulieu[edit]

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

Did not win a major award in the QMJHL. He was nominated. Shows no signs of notabillity. USA1168 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The extremely clear crystal ball will become a reality in about two weeks (on June 24th) as Nathan Beaulieu is certain to go in the 1st round of the 2011 NHL entry draft. This AfD should be postponed until after that event because once he is drafted in the 1st round this discussion becomes moot. That being said, this Beaulieu's notability is already established as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
Bruins 2011 Draft Watch featured article
Dan Sallows featured article
TelegraphJournal featured article
The Hockey Writers featured article
Fox News featured article #1
Fox News featured article #2
The Good Point featured article

The many published feature stories about Beaulieu pushes this article well over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep : ~~While may pass WP:GNG, WP:HOCKEY is more specific and more appropriate. AFAIK, this player does not (yet) satisfy any of the 7 criteria there: player fails WP:HOCKEY at this point in his career.~~ WP:GNG takes precedence. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the general notability guideline per coverage given by Dolovis. The fact that he fails a subject-specific notability guideline is irrelevant. --Anthem 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NHOCKEY is not meant to act in exclusion of other guidelines. Easily passes GNG, which is easily good enough for me. Reso lute 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NHOCKEY does not trump GNG, and while there are a few blogs posted up there, the Fox News articles more than prove to me that this subject passes GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The athlete SNGs are not intended to exclude subjects who so clearly meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I considered nominating it for deletion myself until I looked for sources and expanded the article with no trouble. Considering his somewhat interesting story in the last few years (plays for the team that fired his father, and then father/son Memorial Cup champs), there was quite a bit of material out there even without including blogs. Canada Hky (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as subject easily skates across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 05:00, 12 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 as hoax. I have awarded a barnstar to Voceditenore for her efforts in identifying this elaborate hoax article. Thank you! Neutrality^talk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Francesco di Caspará[edit]

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

This article about an allegedly "minor composer of the Baroque and early Rococo periods" appears to be a hoax. No mention of him can be found in any reference books, despite the elaborate and completely unreferenced description of his life and work. The only mentions of him on the internet are Wikipedia mirrors. The article was created in 2008 by an editor whose first and only contribution to Wikipedia was this article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notfied to WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Classical Music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. —Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore. After an extensive internet search and a search at my university's music library I too found nothing on this composer. No major music reference works mention him. This does indeed appear to be a hoax. It's sad this wasn't caught earlier.4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite embarassing. I imagine someone's having a good chuckle. Although cleverly written, there are a couple of give-aways. One is the repeated use of "reportedly", "supposedly", "possibly" etc. The other is the level of intricate detail provided for someone not covered in any reference works on baroque music, e.g. "in 1729 he married his landlady, Maria Chiara (née Amadelli), with whom he had six children, four of whom survived to adulthood." Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; hoax; I'm tempted to slay it at once. This person never existed. No mentions, no sources, nothing. Antandrus (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. All the evidence points to it being a hoax. --Deskford (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first hoax I've found! Gérard (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---- you would think that there would be at least good source for a composer, so I have to assume that it's fabricated. The article can come back if there are reliable sources (book, periodical, etc.) at that time. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Zero hits on Google Books or Scholar. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:44, 9 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 List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft. Consensus is that this is not notable, and per WP:V unsourced content should not be merged. So I'm redirecting for now; if any content is sourceable that can be merged from the history. Sandstein 09:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva class battleship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fictional spaceship fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although a previous deletion discussion in 2008 closed as merge, due to the fact that all the information in the article is unsourced plot-only coverage, I would suggest deletion instead. Anthem 10:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft or even Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny as this is one of the primary fictional elements of that series. —Farix (t | c) 01:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft, nothing to merge as it is all unreferenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject of the article, a fictional spaceship, does not meet the general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced so there is no material worth merging. Jfgslo (talk) 15:21, 11 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. This mass nomination includes articles with very different lengths, notability, and referencing. There was some indication that some of the shorter individual articles might be better merged into List of air guns, but there was not sufficient agreement on which to constitute a separate consensus. CBD 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airrow A-8S Stealth[edit]

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

Series of orphaned, dead-end articles on air rifles and pistols lacking any references consisting completely of original research. Might be appropriate for a product section within articles on individual manufacturers that meet notability guidelines but these products do not rise to level of notability warranting a dedicated article for each of these:

RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, At least one is worth keeping: Girandoni Air Rifle, but the rest would probably be better off merged into List of air guns to make that a more detailed list with short summaries of each air gun. Seems a laborious task but a much better option than wiping out all this content. -- œ ^™ 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even summarized and merged, references are going to need to be identified and used. wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But unreferenced is not a reason to delete. All this content is still encyclopedic, and is verifiable. References can be added in time, material challenged and likely to be challenged can be removed. I'm not seeing much OR in these, mostly just short descriptions of the guns. -- œ ^™ 11:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merging the kind of short descriptions you mention would be a good outcome here. My earlier comment was just a (poorly worded) reminder that references still need to be there, especially any technical details, without a verifiable source for this information, that's OR.

KEEP ALL. At most there are only two that I can see that could be deleted and they should be nominated separately. A lot of work has gone in to these articles and there are a number of start class articles in here. There are also some interesting historical articles with photographs of 100+ year old air rifles. A lot of work has gone in to these and the "right to bear arms" applies since many meet WP:GNG. Obviously, some require more references but it isn't fair to nominate these articles en masse. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The amount of effort put into these articles, by one editor in particular, how interesting they are, or how old the subjects are do not excuse them from Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, particularly notability and verifiability. It's not at all clear how these articles might meet notability guidelines as they few that have any references use primary sources or fan forums as references. The only claim of notability in any of them is that they are old which is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many have also been used by the American military and in notable wars. Also, with regards to WP:EFFORT, it may not excuse the author from following certain guidelines, (and I'm not saying this is why they all should be kept) but recognizing and giving due consideration to the amount of effort a user puts into improving the project helps the community as a whole, because it allows us to retain editors instead of driving them away (and it looks like almost all of these were in fact created by the same user, Yunnuy (talk · contribs) who may not even be aware all his creations are at risk of deletion.. I've left him a note on his talk page). Indeed I'm glad this was brought up, as it seems editor retention is more important now than it ever was before: see the recent 'call to action' from the Foundation, urging us to "increase community awareness", and "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation". Sorry for the spiel -- œ ^™ 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm half-temped to suggest keeping simply because I dislike mass nominations (especially seeing List of air guns here). However, in the spirit of AGF, I will consider more closely if the nominator assures us all that he (she?) took the time to study each article at length for any redeeming qualities, searched for sources to prove notability, and attempted to improve. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discusion here is on whether or not these articles meet notability guidelines, let's keep the discussion there.--RadioFan (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the only concern addressed in the nomination, nor is it the only relevant concern. The responsibility is on any XfD nominator to prove that due dilligence was done in making sure that his ir her concerns were not readily fixible; and I think a simple assurance is not asking for too much proof. Like I said, I will consider more closely if offered that. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you a good faith attempt was made to search for references to help determine some notability here since none was claimed in the articles. The results of searches were of unclear reliability. The generic nature of some of these titles brings up a variety of hits from guns to video games to computer equipment. So here we are. If there are sources that consensus here deems reliable and the articles updated so that they may meet WP:GNG then great. Again, let's focus on these articles and not descend any further into WP:LAWYERING.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allrightythen, let's move on. Delete Airrow A-8S Stealth, BAM B26, Gat air pistol, IHP Airpistol 0.177, National CO2 Air Pistol (.177), Shooting Star Tommy Gun, and Webley Stinger. The BSA Supersport Air Rifle and BSA Ultra can be redirected to Gamo (airgun manufacturer), while Sterling HR-81 should probably redirect to Sterling Armaments Company. I'm a bit more dubious about BSA Scorpion Air Pistol: the photos do match the ones used in the film, but I couldn't find an RS explicitly naming them, so no opinion on this one. For Drozd BB rifle, one of the sources seems legit enough, but I'm on the fence about whether is establishes notability or not (so neutral here too). Keep Girandoni Air Rifle, it seems to be less a replica/toy/airsoft gun and more an actual historical tool, having been used on the Lewis and Clark expedition, and has a couple of good sources. I'd like to keep Kunitomo air gun for similar reasons, but it's unsourced, so I'd default to a weak delete unless somebody finds a good ref. McGlashan Air Machine Gun and Palmer BB Machine Gun seem to have notability as WWII training tools; though I haven't been able to verify the book listed, I think they are keepers. I'd say the same for the McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol if only it had a better source; I'd wager the same book probably could reference this one, so I'm gonna AGF and say weak keep. List of air guns is in terrible shape, but I do think it is a worthy list (remember, the requirements for a list are different than an article), and think a weak keep is in order (without prejudice to renomination if it doesn't improve in a reasonable amount of time). bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your list of articles to delete (weak or otherwise) seems appropriate. The articles you list as delete or weak delete could be redirected to articles on the manufacturers of these guns. Some exist, some dont. Those that dont are likely to meet notability guidelines, would Yunnuy and/or Bahamut0013 be willing to help here? Girandoni Air Rifle seems well enough referenced and notability claimed to remove it from the list (I've struck it out above). However, the remainder that you list as keep above still have some problems. I'm still not convinced that the can meet general notability guidelines specifically because of the lack reliable sources covering them. McGlashan Air Machine Gun and Palmer BB Machine Gun are referenced with a primary sources (a the manufacturer's website, an self published flickr photos) and a book which appears to have been self published, perhaps by a vanity press. (all information I've been able to find on the book point to ordering it from the author and that a very small press run was made) additionally I've not been able to find an ISBN number for the book. McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol is referenced in a single magazine, the rest of the article appears to be based on original research, a selective merge to the manufacturer's article seems appropriate. As for the list article, it still must meet guidelines for stand alone list articles, specifically it needs to consist of entries with their own non-redirect article. It's currently mostly red links and after this AFD will have only a couple of notable articles. I suggest merging this list into Notable examples section in Air guns--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with merging List of air guns to Air gun if the majority of entries are indeed deleted. I'm hesitant to delete McGlashan Air Machine Gun and/or Palmer BB Machine Gun until somebody actually verifies that the book referenced is not a reliable source by getting eyeballs on it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not add all listed and not just for no reason. The ones i did add are the because: Airrow A-8S Stealth - A notable development of a high pressure air weapon since the Girandoni, Kunitomo air gun - Its a Japanese derivative of the Girandoni and does have a historical role in the development of pneumatic weapons, McGlashan Air Machine Gun,Palmer BB Machine Gun & Shooting Star Tommy Gun - Because they had roles during WW2 as a cost effective training device., McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol - There is already an article but decided to give its own page., Gat air pistol - Because it has become something of British fairground culture as it has been around on stalls since the 1950s?., Webley Stinger - Because its one of the few BB Guns that use a slide action and an overhead magazine, List of air guns - To list examples down for the same reason as the List of firearms but sectioned for air weapons.

Yunuy 23:48PM, 11/5/2011 (UTC)

Comment Articles must meet notability guidelines to warrant their own pages. The reasoning you list above for each of these is interesting but it isn't sufficient to justify dedicated articles. This information can likely be adequately covered in the articles on the respective manufacturers or perhaps in air guns. It's worth pointing out that all of this information must be cited. While tempting, we cant write articles based on our own knowledge, it's got to be citable in reliable sources..--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Air Rifles. Nothing inherently notable about these, although they may be of interest to readers. Redirect the individual articles to the list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is assuming that Girandoni is not up for deletion because it has been crossed out. Keep Girandoni if it is still up for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 19 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to list of air rifles per Crisco 1492, except Girandoni Air Rifle which there's a consensus above to retain.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drozd The Drozd is a totally unique airgun (it's a machine gun) and absolutely 'notable' in the sphere of airgunner interest. This is a no-brainer keep. LoverOfArt (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the :sphere of airgunner interest" isn't the litmus being used to judge notability here, it has to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Specifically, are there sufficient reliable sources to base an article on? --RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merging to a list may be a good idea for now, but as far as I can see the stubs are all unverified. The lack of verification should allow a redirect, but disallow a merge. However, if all are redirected instead of merged, there won't be any content in the list, meaning there won't be a list for the stubs to be redirected to. --Pink Bull 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a merge would allow the content from the stubs to be verified, given time. -- œ ^™ 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a merge would allow the content to be verified any more then if the content were not merged. Some of the stubs have been around unsourced for a number of years.--Pink Bull 14:49, 27 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) 07:24, 27 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I do not think it is appropriate to mass-nominate these articles, as although some of them may have non-notable topics, the notability of most is at least debatable. A merge to a list would not improve Wikipedia's coverage of air rifles/pistols. We should debate each article independently, so that we have the time to look for sources etc. for each one. Anthem 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been relisted? Consensus seems perfectly clear to me.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a disagreement (slight, though) as to whether they are worth keeping or merging in an unreferenced state. If, however, another uninvolved editor disagrees, then please feel free to close the debate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. While a list article would be useful (even though the nominator apparently proposes deleting the relevant list), there's no basis developed for determining which articles should be reduced to list entries and which can support discrete articles as well. No prejudice against returning for case-by-case determination if necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I checked out one of these (the BSA Scorpion) and found that there were plenty of sources out there such as Shooter's Bible, Guns Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, Gun Digest, The Greenhill dictionary of guns and gunmakers, &c. The nomination is therefore shooting blanks and so should be discounted and our editing policy followed instead. Warden (talk) 20:41, 5 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a term, not a encyclopedic article and its already covered in School prank. Cannot be expanded much farther than a dictionary definition. Stickulus (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Borderline encyclopedic value. For expansion, what about the dangers section, which has a reference to the Yorkshire Post already? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School Prank - the issue with this article is that is very little significant coverage of wedgies alone in books and academic articles on school pranks - it is invariably mentioned, but I see no evidence of independent notability. --Anthem 10:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots Of Vandalism on Topic due to it being a prank or joke. Not worth hassles of undoing vandalism, may add protection to page as alternative but rather delete for convenience Stickulus (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a target for vandalism isn't a valid reason for deletion. Maybe you'd like to nominate George W. Bush for deletion based on your rationale? Lugnuts (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, it's sourced and contains more info than the section at School prank. I don't understand why this in the list of language-related deletion discussions, though, since wedgies have nothing to do with language. —Angr (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom is arguing for deletion based on it being a dicdef. I considered it enough grounds to list at the languages board. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very particular word that needs encyclopedic explanation, especially for foreigners. In my country it's not a familiar prank and we like to be able to look up the word when it occurs in books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.189.209 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- encyclopedic subjects deserve encyclopedic articles, and this is an encyclopedic article, nominator's assertion aside. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as College Men and Masculinities. Warden (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the school prank article doesn't give as much detail as the article itself, for example it doesn't list variations of wedgie. Matthew Fennell (talk) 20:26, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamboo Web Suite[edit]

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

Is this product/company really notable? My google searches failed to find significant independent coverage, although maybe some exists in German. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient indication of notability, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:06, 7 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The City Bowl Mizers[edit]

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

Not-notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and A7. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 5 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) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Gaze[edit]

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

This article is badly written, unnecessary, and lacking citations. Ybrik222 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article does have some references and some bands do use it, but otherwise it might be too trivial to have it's own article. –BuickCentury Driver 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE#10. Meph^talk 04:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable: New Musical Express, The Guardian, Rolling Stone Magazine, and The Oxford Student.

Possibly reliable: Holy Moly and Clash Music. Meph^talk 04:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination suggests only that the article needs to be improved, which it does. It's a genre that has received sufficient coverage, so there's no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Meph, I think the sources that have been turned up are enough to meet the GNG. Also, AfD is not cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:55, 7 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) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Magnus Narvesen[edit]

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

vanity page created by the subject without sufficient notability established Warfieldian (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Narvesen seems to be a sought-after sideman on the Norwegian jazz scene, however, there is not enough coverage needed for compiling a decent article about this musician. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of references showing he is getting name-checked in reviews from reputable sources. However, these are as just a band member, which isn't enough to meet the Notability criteria, so unless someone can find more specific critical attention, weak delete as a premature article which may become appropriate for re-creation as his career progresses. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 5 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) 19:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Fitzgerald Group[edit]

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

self promotion, non-notable company Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because Wikipedia has many articles on companies doesn't mean this one should make the cut, the article sounds too much like what their own website would say, not a encyclopedia entry. I typed their name into a search engine and came back with nothing. SwisterTwister (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another small ad agency in a very crowded field. It looks like the building they rent might be more notable than the company itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 13 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) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Caluya[edit]

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

Non-notable person, no sources. Autobiography. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Kristine Caluya's performance in the play "Running with the Bulls" was noted by New Zealand media ([15][16][17]), but I'm afraid it is not enough to meet our notability requirements. I can't find any other significant roles or sources confirming that she is a notable actress in New Zealand. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT:

No - Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

No - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

No - Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:55, 5 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 RESULT: Snow keep. Nominator withdrawing AfD, after MichaelQSchmidt did a stellar job of finding sources and, essentially, writing the article from scratch. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead fury[edit]

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

No explanation of notability, no sources. Film has 124 votes on IMDb. Does not appear to have had a wide release. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Meets WP:NF for its genre. A film need not have wide theatrical release to be found notable through its having significant coverage in independent sources considered reliable for sourcing their genre. I am troubled that the film was proposed for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation (and while it was being actively edited) and then sent to AFD 90 only minutes later. WHat ever happened to reasonable research into a topic, or consideration that Wikipedia is a work in progress andthat we do not have to be immediately perfect? Yes, the article that was proposed and then nominated was only one sentence,[18] but it was being actively edited by a new contributor[19] who was yes, warned that it was tagged and that it was sent to AFD, but who received no other assistance in the article's improvement. With respects, I wish to remind both the good faith tagger[20] and the good faith nominator[21] that through just a little work it was not at all difficult to quickly turn a 11 word stub into a (so far) ~~559~~ ~~805~~ 1052 word start class article to serve the project and its readers... without making Wikipedia unfriendly to a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the film notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films), I would appreciate it if you would be specific as to how. It doesn't appear to me that it meets any of these criteria, but I'm listening. With respect to your other points: I don't think there's anything inappropriate about nominating a one-sentence article for PROD, and frankly I'm surprised that it didn't get speedied. There are plenty of ways to draft a Wikipedia article that don't involve putting a one-sentence article directly in mainspace. This isn't about not biting the newbies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think biting the newbs is a always a consideration even if unintentional, and while yes, there are plenty of aways to draft an article, no one suggested to the newb just what any of them might be... which is why I dropped a personal note on his page to suggest use of a userspace for future drafts.

As for the film being notable, when we look up the ladder to the topic meeting WP:GNG, it's a sound keeper. In its meeting WP:NF, we simply need look at NF's "General principles" which repeats acknowledement of the GNG in its stating "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Following that inital instruction are "atributes" to consider... not as mandates, but as encouragement to find sources. As the topic can be seen to meet the GNG, it need not have wide distribution or be historically notable or have won a major award or have been preserved in an archive or be taught in a film school. Those are simply "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". They are not mandated criteria. And just as I have done, required sources can be found without these attributes being present. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the good old "GNG test". Qrsdogg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lousy B-horror films are accepted on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow Keep I do not necessarily go by just the GNG, either for deletion or keeping (and I certainly don't go by votes on IMdB, one way or another.). But MQS seems to have done a remarkably good job in finding critical discussion of the film--it's model of what can be done if someone knows the subject area. And of course critical attention is the ideal way of showing notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 6 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) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6x6cm[edit]

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

I couldn't find any information about this application. The name makes the search very difficult, and it states that it was just released - frankie (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently does not meet notability guidelines, and reads as promotional. Haruth (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, insufficient indication of notability, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage of it. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am also having trouble finding reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too came up with no reliable sources for a 6x6cm except for shopping site Amazon and another advertisement on PC World. Granted, if it hasn't gain much media coverage due to its recent coverage, fine but at least there would at least be something. Taking a glance at the history of 6x6cm shows that multiple accounts (I suspect the same person) built the article. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:20, 9 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. CBD 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Only coverage is by the primary sources of the various publsihers of the D&D franchise over the years. Unlikely to ever have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as is required for a stand alone article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From time to time, articles like this get targeted for deletion by editors who consider the subject material trivial, and who think that getting them deleted will be easy. Much more often than one would think, the articles are retained. The material concerned is reviewed and discussed in periodicals associated with the RPG industry, and I gather from looking at other AFDs of this kind that such material is considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. Note that this is not a "keep" vote, but I probably will make one soon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a typical time wasting AFD. Sourcing is sufficient. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the sourcing "sufficient"? - not one piece is third party - they are all by the various incarntions of the D&D franchise holderActive Banana (^bananaphone 10:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Monster Manual is a good source; widely read, own article, etc. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - you apparently dont know the difference between first party primary sources and independant third party sources. The D&D franchise was orginally published by TSR who was bought out by Wizard of the Coast who published your Monster Manual and every other source in the article.Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:N tells us that independent of the subject excludes self-published work, promotional material and the like. The sources here are thus acceptable because they were obviously not published by lamia themselves and are not promotional in nature. The fact that this material has remained in print over many decades and editions is good evidence of notability and the sources are ideal for our core policy as they are canonical. Warden (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a joke right? you are not actually expecting any adult to do anything but laugh you off the stage with that sort of "logic". Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giggling too, but Warden's right in that TSR is not dependent on Lamia. I think it's clear that that sort of unidirectional independence isn't sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. TSR is a publisher and writers such as Don Turnbull are authors of the usual kind. Authors and publishers usually have a commercial interest in their work, claim copyright and so forth. But the key relevant requirement is that the publishing enterprise is not a vanity press or self-published. That is the case here as the sources we have here tended to be hard-cover best-sellers and this commercial success is good evidence that numerous people actually want to read about this stuff. And that is the point of the notability guideline - that we should write about topics which have been noticed and so we know there is an audience for them. Warden (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to the appropriate article (I know there is one, just don't remember the name). Coverage in many editions of an award-winning game and, presumably, in third-party publications related to the game (such as Pathfinder). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The numerous sources provided in the article are quite satisfactory and our editing policy is to develop such well-sourced material by ordinary editing rather than to delete it. Warden (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted keep or merge earlier, but I have to admit, the sourcing in the article as-is is really pretty week... they're all first party. I wouldn't call it "quite satisfactory", just "sufficient enough to indicate that other sources probably exist". Unfortunately, as far as reliable sources go for fictional elements of D&D, most are in print rather than online. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This actually begs the question... is every TSR reference a "primary" source? While they're all separate versions of the same game, the latter editions are clearly derivative from the former. It's much the same as when a character appears in a book, and then in a movie, and then on a calendar, and then in a novel... they're all primary sources, but the existence of multiple primary sources covering multiple formats or editions should contribute towards notability in some way that's not currently well-comprehended by our guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree completely. They're all primary (except the one I just added in), but the number of times that something appears even in primary sources probably should have some impact on notability. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Michael C. Price and Drilnoth. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jclemens' point about multiple primary sources. zorblek (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drinloth.Merge Good catch citing Paizo/Pathfinder as a third party source. Of course, that should be added to the article as well. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paizo is NOT an independant third party - they are/were the officially licenced non-independant publisher of material under the editorial authority of TSR/WoC. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paizo used to be officially licensed to publish Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Since Wizards of the Coast canceled the print versions of the magazines and created D&D 4th edition, Paizo has been competing with Wizards by continuing to support the third edition of the game instead. Wizards has not officially licensed them to create the material. Just because a company used to make products under a license doesn't mean that the newer non-licensed stuff is also first party. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed: Active Banana, you are incorrect. Paizo is independent from WotC in the same way that AMD is independent from Intel. They used to do some work for the associated company, but were never part of said company and no longer have any sort of working relationship. Further, the works referenced here are from post the period in which they did work for WotC. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I've added one ref from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. There may be others in the periodicals, but I don't think I have any of the ones that do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)The reference within that publication is not about the topic of this article, the D&D monster- its only relation is that a Wikipedia editor thinks that that the other game has a similar monster. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a point for valid discussion. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Lamia in roleplaying games? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not totally against it, but I do find it a little dubious. It may well be the case that other RPGs cover include lamias in some significant fashion, but it seems to me that Pathfinder is a direct descendant of D&D 3e published under open license and bears direct relation to the D&D entity, and that Pathfinder is seen as the D&D wikiproject as falling in its scope. Changing the scope to all RPGs may be a bit coarse of a scope change, unless (again) lamias exist in a significant capacity in other RPGs worth covering. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've changed my vote above to merge. While I think citing Pathfinder is an valid angle, it still seems a bit weakly sourced, unless we can find more in the terms of sources independent of either WotC/TSR and Paizo. I sort of doubt they exist; the lamia isn't that notable of a creature compared to some. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources demonstrated to verify notability. Let's just run through the first few sources on offer:

Monster Manual - not independent of the Dungeons and Dragons creators as a "core rulebook".
Fiends Folio - not independent - published by the creators of the game.
Creature Catalogue - not independent - it's an "official game accessory".
Monstrous Compendium Volume Two - not independent, published by the creators of the game.

I think the problem's quite clear - there are no independent sources. The "Bestiary" in the last cite might be independent of D&D, but it's not independent of the game it was designed for. Anthem 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think the number of primary sources weighs on the argument here. Primary sources can be used; they just can't be used to establish notability nor should original research be occurring. The mere inclusion of primary resources does not make an article non-notable. I do not buy the logic that the game itself disassociated for the trademark-holding publisher is tantamount to making the Bestiary not independent. There are dozens of books about chess. Should we decide that if a book is about chess that all books about a topic within it (say, opening moves) become non-independent? Surely not. -Sangrolu (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is no "Chess Franchise Corporation" for the books about the topic to be independant from. 2) while the specific number of primary sources used is not relevant, the fact that ALL of the sources initially present are primary sources is important. The Piazo third party source added after the AfD started is not actually about the subject of the article itself, the D&D Lamia its about a different lamia (who probably has its origin in the D&D lamia, but that is Original Reseach to make that claim) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1) Right! Above, Anthem was suggesting that we should be assessing notability based on independence the game not the publisher, which has nothing to do with the written notability guideline. Chess has no one publisher, and these days, publishers other than WotC publish open licensed material for the D20 System. #2 is a fair point, but play's to Drilnoth's suggestion that he proper course of action is to change the scope of the article. As for the claim of original research, I think that's a semantic game. The Bestiary talks about Pathfinder's version of the Lamia, and nothing to the contrary has been suggested. What shouldn't be disputed is that Pathfinder is a derivative of the D&D game; the Wikiproject D&D recognizes that and there are independent references in the Pathfinder articles saying that. However, I am beginning to agree that Drilnoth's solution is the most logical compromise. -Sangrolu (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Merge with Lamia: Just as a general note, I also wouldn't be opposed to merging it with Lamia and just leaving a one-paragraph summary of the publication history and description in that article. However, historically, such merges have been removed from the target article because the target is about the mythological creature; that is what led to the glut of "Blah Blah (Dungeons & Dragons)" article as far as I can tell. If we could merge a summary of the creature's appearance in the game with the main article, that would be perfectly suitable, and probably a better solution than keeping the separate articles or deleting the spinoff one. Something like a merge could be done with a lot of article which, as separate pages, have unclear notability. (after looking at Lamia): Scratch that, that page is a disambig and no other target is reasonable. Propose instead Lamia (games) or the like. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (games) sounds a good idea, but I don't think that can be decided here - it must be done on the talk page. A merge is effectively a keep, with the topic moved to the talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best place would be a "Creatures in Dungeons and Dragons" article, but no single such article exists. There are multiple list articles broken up by edition and creature type. As for Lamia, the article did a length fork of the "in popular culture" content to a separate article, Lamia in popular culture. That article currently doesn't mention Dungeons & Dragons, though it should. But I'd have to say that most of the material covered in this article isn't appropriate there. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per Active Banana, there is no commercial or organizational link between the historical inventors of chess and the authors/publishers of chess books. If there was, I would not consider chess books to be secondary sources when dealing with chess. The major issue is not that primary sources are being used, but that there are no secondary sources at all. Anthem 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No ~~mention~~ coverage in independent sources. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pathfinder? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant coverage, which is what I should have said. Pathfinder seems to be a players manual for another game, involving a similar concept, not a discussion of this fictional creature. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine distinction that doesn't really make a difference. The point is, it describes it; describing it = discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It discusses the "Dungeons and Dragons" creature? Or does it not in fact mention another fictional creature, also based on the same mythological original? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are good arguments for merging made above, the fact is that IPC topic sections really need the consent of both the source and target articles, and there are reasonably good alternative merge targets as well. Sourcing is adequate to meet V, and the arguments about primary sources overlook the fact that multiple separate companies have published works covering Lamia: WotC and TSR can't both simultaneously be primary sources. If WotC owns D&D now, then the older TSR publications are now independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again laughable. WotC owns TSR and so TSR is not and cannot under any possible definition suddenly become "independent" Active Banana (^bananaphone 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveBanana, I admonish you to be more civil. While I see your point, I don't see what "again laughable" adds to the discussion other than belittling someone you disagree with. -Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Active Banana's tone there, but I have to agree with his overall statement that TSR is a primary source. WotC bought them, so it is not part of the same company (essentially). At present, I think the only independent source is the Pathfinder ref which I added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Some of these sources are secondary sources, but they are not WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to call a spade a spade and laugh at ludicrous statements presented as facts. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. WP:V demands that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". This article does not meet that test, and there are not sufficient reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that that discuss the subject to enable the defect to be corrected by editing.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I do not agree with your !vote, thank you for at least agreeing that there are reliable third-party sources, and just saying that there may not be enough of them. Some of the above commenters continue to say that there are no reliable sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quoting WP:V out of context. See WP:PSTS for a more detailed and nuanced description of why primary sources are perfectly acceptable to meet V. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I am not. I'm simply emphasising the part you generally tend to ignore. It's fine to use primary sources in an article, but it is completely unacceptable to base an article on primary sources. The foundation of all articles has to be material from "reliable, third-party, published sources". The use of primary sources to fill in detail is quite acceptable, but sourcing the vast majority of an article's content to primary sources violates WP:V.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you understand how nonsensical that is? V is about verifiability, not notability. If the reader can find the primary sources and read them to verify the information in the article, then V is met. You're trying to make V subsume N, which is a stealth way of getting N from a guideline to policy, a perennially failed proposal. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject of this article is to all intents a fictional entity. For notability of such an entity we need to see significant coverage of the entity in that status -- that is, as opposed to in-universe coverage. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-point It's not unreasonable to point out that if there are numerous fictional contexts something is used in, that can reflect a certain kind of notability. Certainly, at least some secondary sources are required to establish verifiability, but to suggest that something can be written about by several different published authors in several different context is not notable just because its fiction is kind of dodgy. i kan reed (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify what makes coverage "in-universe"? I'd say an article written about how the creature is useful in the context of the game (by an independent source, etc.) would be fine. Heck, an article by a third party that describes the (fictional) habitat would also be fine IMO. Are you disagreeing? If so, could you explain on what basis? Hobit (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject, as required by the general notability guideline. Instruction manuals and the actual games are the furthest thing from independent. They're published materials from the people who profit from the creation of this fictional entity and represent a conflict of interest. They can be used to verify fictional descriptions. But they cannot be used to WP:verify notability any more than my personal statements can be used to verify notability of my blog. Our verifiability policy says that "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Shooterwalker. The only sources that anyone has been able to supply were written by people who have a personal and commercial interest in promoting the subject. People are obviously capable of writing reams and reams of material on stuff they have a personal interest, and this can frequently be used to verify facts about the subject- but what it can't do is demonstrate notability as required by WP:N. Proof that this fictional element has gained much notice in the outside world is very much lacking. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though I'd much prefer a redirect to an appropriate article to leave the gate open, I just don't want to register a keep !vote because at present it's not promising). Apart from the Dragon magazine source the sources all seem to be bestiaries, game books etc. and not sources unconnected with the game itself. Even Dragon magazine is published by the game developer, though it is slightly removed compared to the others. It doesn't sit right with ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.." (WP:N). Someone another 16:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Make a notability check against DC 15 or be deleted. -Ikanreed 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To closing admin: Give it a shot. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:GNG, no trace of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the interests of full disclosure, it would have been nice if someone had mentioned that, although it is not necessarily cavassing, some of the participants of this AFD were most likely attracted to it by this discussion. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional magical beast of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise does not meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. While the content of the article is referenced (with primary sources), the article does not provide sources independent of the subject, secondary sources or reliable third-party sources to presume that the Lamia of D&D merits to have an article. Outside of very basic descriptions of its appearances in primary sources, the article doesn't provide reception and significance for the beast as a subject, so there is no basis to establish that the beast is notable outside of the fictional context. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the fictional beast has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am a fan of D&D, but I don't think this particular article belongs on Wikipedia for the following reasons.
- Since this is based on the Mythical creature, and not an original IP creation like Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer, or a widely-known archetypical race such as Elves or Dwarves in D&D, I don't believe it requires it's own article on WP. At best, it might belong in a list or article of mythological D&D creatures, of be mentioned in the Lamia's in popular culture article. I think it fails the notability guidelines.
- The article itself is not worth saving--it is basically a line list of publication histories with a very brief description taken from the OGL rules. There is no analysis of its impact in popular culture or the game itself, nor is there any content that significantly separates it from it's mytholgical basis. (And it seems there are several of these articles that might apply, such as Medusa). JRT (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the potential additional list of articles that probably need to be looked at. I wanted to see where community consensus landed with this fairly obvious case before opening up a wider can of worms. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd suggest looking closely at this list and seeing if all those creatures are deserving of a special article based on their D&D incarnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dungeons_%26_Dragons_creatures_from_folklore_and_mythology JRT (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even if one disagrees with the well made points of Jclemens and judges that the article fails GNG, there's a strong IAR case for keeping this harmless article which is interesting and useful to role players and fantasy fans. Deleting this article could set a problematic precedent that could lead to hundreds of other harmless and well liked fictional / RPG topics going the same way. As this is could be a highly consequential test case, I reguest that the controversal admins who are always being taken to DRV leave closing this to one of their more moderate colleagues. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens's "well made points" (according to you) consist only in deliberately ignoring or distorting WP:GNG. It is a purely factual statement that this article fails WP:GNG. And "harmless" is not an existing notion in WP's functioning. Either a topic is notable, or it is not. An article clearly below our standards for inclusion won't be kept just because it is "harmless" (which is another way of saying WP:ILIKEIT). The deletion of this article won't set any "problematic precedents" because WP:GNG has existed and been enforced for a long time now, there's nothing new in deleting blatantly useless articles that would be better suited in fansites.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people invoking IAR invoke only half of the policy - ignoring the rules- while ignoring the other more important half if it improves the encyclopedia. I am not seeing anything that supports how keeping this article actually improves the encyclopedia. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple: it contains interesting, sourced information. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a lot of things that are interesting that are not encyclopedic. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a lot of things that are.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The character only exists in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 11 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) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Gardner (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable Minor League Baseball player who hasn't played since 2008, so it looks like is career is over. Adam Penale (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Baseball Watcher 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 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) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism in Europe[edit]

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

No real original material. Content is largely stuff that was rejected from original neoconservatism article. Chmtp (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Chmtp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Did you notify anyone about this discussion? Wondering if you have a diff where it was "rejected from orig newcon article?" Even if it is a fork, that isn't a reason to delete it. Do you have an argument that the article is not notable? Lionel (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per no indication of notability. bW 03:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale put forward by nominator has no basis in deletion policy. Nominator has declined to elucidate. I disagree with Bello: article has 3 solid, reliable sources... It passes WP:N. Lionel (talk) 18:23, 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) 02:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notable topic; difficult article to write. So far, so bad here. Still, this looks like a Keep and Improve situation at first glance... Carrite (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is actually about supposed European influences on necoconservatism, and violates OR, SYN. We would need to show that there is a body of literature about this subject in order to have an article. TFD (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article definitely has problems, especially the US stuff. However, between this article, Neoconservatism in the Czech Republic and British neoconservatism, there are enough sources for this article. We could start by trimming the US section and adding sections on Czech and British neocon. Then expand with neocon content from other countries. Lionel (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original synthesis and Undue. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:43, 6 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) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade[edit]

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

The article shows some signs of notability. I would like to seek an aoutside opinion. maucho eagle _(c) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the first criterion for musicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Here are a few online news media sources from a google news search: http://www.ospaparazzi.com.br/celebridades/oracao-da-banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-vira-hit-4086.html http://moglobo.globo.com/integra.asp?txtUrl=/megazine/mat/2011/05/24/banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-vira-mais-parodiada-da-internet-uma-semana-depois-de-estourar-no-youtube-924528364.asp http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/a-banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-a-brazilian-prayer/2011/05/25/AG1TJEBH_blog.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjayant (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 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) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article on the Portuguese Wikipedia has also recently been nominated for deletion (on June 1), and the debate also focuses on the band's notability. There, those who wish to keep the article have argued that it has received significant coverage from reliable outside sources and that it is far from the only Wikipedia article that focuses on an internet phenomenon. Those who want it to be deleted have mentioned that it qualifies as a garage band because it has not produced a CD, played at a well-known venue, or made revenue off of its music. For anyone who speaks Portuguese (or likes to use Google Translate), this page may be of interest.Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if anyone feels that expanding and improving the article would help to justify keeping it, I can volunteer to translate the article from Portuguese Wikipedia. Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick, slightly sloppy translation of the article from the Portuguese Wikipedia to see if that might show it's worth keeping. If we do keep it, I'll double-check the references and refine the whole thing. I just figured I'd get the extra material in there now. Armadillopteryx (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP: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 its. Maddox (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sheer volume of press sources that have covered this band, the lyrics to "Oração" can now be found in popular online lyrics databases. A simple Google search, both in English and in Portuguese, yields many such links. Underground garage bands' lyrics are not nearly as accessible. And as far as I can tell, A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade's situation parallels that of Gary Brolsma, whose principal claim to fame is his Numa Numa video and several references to it in news and pop culture. No one is contesting his notability here on Wikipedia. If one successful internet video and a lot of media attention make Brolsma (and others) notable enough for Wikipedia, then I see no reason why they should not suffice for this band. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, because someone may bring this up: Although Brolsma his since made other brief appearances in pop culture, none of them received nearly as much attention as his internet video. Further, his Wikipedia article has been around since February 2005, long before most of the "additional" pop culture appearances ever occurred. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing more research and adding to the article, I've discovered that in addition to meeting Criterion #1 at WP:BAND, the band also meets Criterion #7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city). Armadillopteryx^talk 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet Criterion #1 of WP:BAND at the very least. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:BAND Onjack (talk) 17:12, 8 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) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan David (musician)[edit]

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

Prodded under A7. Prod was removed. I cannot find how this meets wp's notability requirements, and prod remover failed to indicate it as well. Others are welcome to try to find indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You did not propose deletion under A7. You requested speedy deletion per CSD A7. The article claims CDs, DVDs and books published, major concerts performed, media reviews and TV appearances. So CSD A7 is not applicable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I did request speedy deletion under A7. The removal of the tag was accompanied only by the following edit summary, however, which did not indicate why A7 was not an appropriate reason for deletion in this case: "notability clearly stated". In addition, none of what is now indicated above rose to the level IMHO of addressing the A7 concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Has enough claims to notability but lacks cites to properly verify (other than the primary source of his own website). I had a bit of a look around, and what I could find suggests he might have border-line notability, but without evidence I'd say delete. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 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) 02:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's clearly an accomplished musician, and the fact the he performs regularly and has several releases means that I am looking for a reason to keep, but I couldn't find any significant coverage or evidence of notability that would justify keeping the article. Allmusic lists one album, with little detail, and Canadian sites that I would expect to have some coverage of such an artist if notable such as Exclaim! and canoe.ca had nothing.--Michig (talk) 07:58, 5 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 The Cartoon Cartoon Show#List_of_shorts. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of What a Cartoon! Show shorts[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the article's notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to The Cartoon Cartoon Show#List of shorts. There isn't anything here that isn't already in that section of the parent article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per Erpert. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redundant to the parent article. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:12, 7 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 Mastodon (band). T. Canens (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Sanders[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, not notable independent of Mastodon (band). Suggested merge (Talk:Mastodon_(band)#Merger_proposal) was ignored, save one comment that I should "Try to improve the article first before make this kind of comment." After 1 month, redirected to the band. This was reverted by the commenting editor, suggesting AfD. I still cannot find any evidence of notability independent of Mastodon, so here we are. SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:38, 3 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) 01:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND criteria 1 and 7.--Malconfort (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." WP:BAND For #1: Virtually no coverage has been found discussing Sanders independent of the band. For #7: No sources indicate this. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – From WP:BAND, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Musician guidelines aside, Troy Sanders does appear to meet the general notability guideline criteria, which is only seeking a wealth of sources and information. Though the article needs some sprucing up, the references definitely meet WP:RS—most notably the feature in a magazine specifically for bass guitarists. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In other words, ignoring WP:BAND, which specifically excludes "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves (which is all of the sources in the article). The question here is not whether there is sufficient information, the question is whether he is notable independent of the band. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - According to the discussion page archives, interviews are perfectly acceptable[22][23][24]. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - From the first one: "Interviews, unless they include a substantial element of independent commentary on a band/artist, e.g. an introductory section, are not great sources for establishing notability". From the second: "If someone is interviewed in Rolling Stone, they're notable. If someone is interviewed for an independent podcast, that's zero contribution to notability." (None of them are Rolling Stone. Also in the first as "If it's in Rolling Stone? Absolutely. If it's on a Wordpress blog? Not in the least."). Additionally, these are discussing notability of a band. We're talking about a member of the band. The guideline is abundantly clear that we are looking for coverage that demonstrates "notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Take a look at the titles of all of the sources. None of them are about simply "Troy Sanders", they are all about "Troy Sanders of Mastodon" (two of them), "Mastodon's Troy Sanders" or "Mastodon". Compare someone clearly notable independent of their band: John Lennon, Bono, etc. They certainly didn't have to write "John Lennon of the Beatles" or "U2's Bono" because they are notable independent of their respective bands. If you wish to ignore the guideline, please explain why. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete; that has been the usual outcome where a band member does not get independent coverage, but there are still some addtional sources. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 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 redirect to O.A.R.. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Roberge[edit]

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

no notability independent of his band duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O.A.R. I can find no indication of notability independent of the band. The article is essentially the same information as the material in the O.A.R. article on the band's formation so there isn't any need for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 31 May 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) 01:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O.A.R. sounds about right. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:10, 5 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 BLP an admin may delete any BLP of a borderline notable subject while closing an AFD if there is credible evidence that the subject of the article requested deletion. Consider this done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons which, while not individually mandating deletion, add up to what I feel is a convincing argument:

The subject is of borderline notability. Most of the notability claims seem to rely on inheriting notability from more famous people he has worked with. A Google News search shows that he is notable, but not very.
COI: The article was originally written by a user who has admitted editing on the subject's behalf and who has vigorously attempted to maintain the article as promotional and remove content embarrassing to his client. (See the talk page).
A user claiming to be the subject himself has also removed the content he regards as embarrassing, made implied legal threats and demanded that the article be deleted. (See talk)
Verifiability: The embarrassing content in question was referenced to TMZ, and no other RS source could be found to confirm or rebut it although there is plenty of gossip. The rest is not very well referenced either. This is meant to be a BLP but where is there an RS reference for the “early life” biographical details?

Lets take that all together: We have a person of borderline notability/verifiability who tried to get themselves a promotional biography on Wikipedia while trying to suppress use of any negative coverage that exists and then, then this failed, requests deletion.

I say we give him what he wants! We don't always agree to such requests but there have been cases where we have and I think this is similar to those. The subject is not so famous that the absence of an article leaves a hole in Wikipedia. The article is more trouble than it is worth to anybody and I don't like the idea of the subject of an article dictating its content. Lets lose it and get on with writing more important articles. DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:12, 29 May 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) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the most boring AfD ever? I am a bit surprised not to see the user(s) who practically begged for it to be deleted on the talk page showing up here to vote for deletion. Ho hum... --DanielRigal (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's own assertions "borderline notability" and "Google News search shows that he is notable, but not very". Per Wikipedia criteria, even minimal notability is notability none-the-less. It would seem other article issues would be best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the verifiability issues? I can't see anything reliable that gives us biographical background. All we have is stuff which he or his agent have written themselves. What do you propose that we keep, a poorly referenced, promotional biography or a stub?

What about the subject's own request for the article to be deleted?

This isn't just about notability and lack of notability is certainly not the only criteria that can lead to an article being deleted --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 10 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) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Slotek[edit]

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

Plenty of news hits by this journalist and a handful quoting him but nothing about him. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Pburka (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 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) 01:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have much to add, beyond support. What the nominator says is correct: there are plenty of reviews by this person, but the only thing that comes close to a source on him is a letter written to the editor disagreeing with his reviews. Classic fail of the WP:GNG. — chro • man • cer

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volley-Ball Club Chamalières[edit]

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

My French is too limited to say for sure, but it looks like this team does not play at the highest level of its sport, and the article doesn't appear to include any reliable, independent sources. Is this a team which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Or is this just a situation in which someone who is knowledgeable about French volleyball can help to identify sources and make the notability of this organization more clear? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a third league (National Championship of 3rd Division). fr:Championnat de France de Nationale 1 de volley-ball féminin and Volley-ball en France. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a third division team that gets nothing in gnews. google just shows mainly directory listings. lower level teams are not inherently notable and must pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG which this does not. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 2 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) 01:50, 5 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 Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Consensus is that this is not a valid article and that some content could be used in the main article. A redirect is only needed if this happens. So I'm redirecting for now, if no history merger occurs in a reasonable period of time the redirect can be deleted based on this discussion. Sandstein 08:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Fee Increase 2007[edit]

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

No notability in its own right; some of this is possible contents in the article on the society, but the title is non-distinctive and a redirect would not be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 29 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) 01:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I get the feeling that this invokes WP:NOTNEWS and any relevant content should be merged to Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. The article would be better suited in the main Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain page, not to mention the title is indeed eyesore to read. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:22, 10 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) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Dean Harris[edit]

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

Contested prod. Autobiographical vanity article about a non-notable disciple of a non-notable guru. This search has only 103 hits, some of which are irrelevant and none of which link to reliable sources. The references in the article mention him in passing at best and don't show notability. The only major contributors are the subject of the article and his puppet. andy (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion and your understanding of the Wikipedia approach and protocol. I nominate the article for speedy deletion. (tdharris (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I've tagged it. andy (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I had the impression that the article was widely viewed as in violation of various Wikipedia protocols. I was expecting a number of people to contribute their views. Is it misleading to believe that you alone have objections to this article? (Kavipadma (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 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) 01:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets the WP:CREATIVE notability criteria as an art critic or curator; the remainder of the article is associative (correspondent, yoga disciple) but notability is not inherited. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:33, 6 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. Courcelles 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and Fast Multimedia Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was previously nominated for deletion on the basis that its subject was not notable and was closed as no consensus. Several self-published sources were presented, none of which met any WP:RS requirements. The situation remains the same today. The article is essentially unreferenced; the only citation it has is to the library's project site.

Using "Simple and Fast Multimedia Library" -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum, Google Web returns 151 results it deems unique. None of these results are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. For example, the first ten results are a blog, four Debian project pages, three Facebook pages that mirror Wikipedia, and pages from a hobbyist game mod project. Google News returns no results; Google Books, one result, a book republishing Wikipedia content; Google Scholar, seven results. The Google Scholar results do not appear to be substantial coverage of the subject, nor do they appear to state that the subject is notable. Rilak (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presumed independent coverage consists of a few blogs of unknown individuals. Less than 10 citations in GS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent, reliable sources cited in the article and Rilak's thorough search makes a good case that there simply aren't any. This is not a topic on which I would expect there to be good offline sources despite a lack of ones available via google. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:00, 13 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. Tpiwowar is reminded that a user may only !vote once in an AFD. Courcelles 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of prepaid mobile phone brands[edit]

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

Delete. WP is. not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article offers no value ChrisUK (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, why are you !voting to delete an article you created? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ it was created to declutter another article. No need to keep it now as it offers no standalone value.ChrisUK (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The original reason for breaking this content out of the Prepaid_mobile_phone article was a reasonable way to keep that article looking tidy. Examining the history of this article shows that it was regularly updated. Nobody would bother to update a page that had no value. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ WP:SS "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Tpiwowar (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Tpiwowar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog or directory. 74.198.9.234 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep.~~ WP:NOT is a very long article and you offer no details to relate your comment to anything in particular. I assume you mean to refer to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However this article does not meet any of the listed criteria for deletion at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 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) 01:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I'm restoring and relisting it per a request on my talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ This is an important navigation page that bridges to many other related WP pages. Deletion would dead end a key part of the Prepaid_mobile_phone article that links to this article. (This article was once a part of that article.) Without this list readers would no longer be able navigate to the companies the page is about. Nomination for deletion fails to recognize that people navigate WP in different ways. I personally use such bridge pages frequently to navigate to other WP articles. WP is more than just a bunch of isolated articles, it is also a web of information. Deletion of articles like this one cuts the web. Consistently applying the argument presented to justify this deletion would remove a significant portion of WP and cripple its navigability. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. there would be literally 1000s of brands that would meet this mark worldwide. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep.~~ This comment turns WP:NOTDIR on its head. WP:NOTDIR states “Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details.” All this article does is list major brands, thus providing very useful links to other Wikipedia articles about those brands. That is all it needs to do. If there are other brands that are not listed it has no bearing of the utility of this article. If you think some other brands should be included, you should add them. To argue that incompleteness is a reason for deleting an article sets a standard that would delete most of Wikipedia. Tpiwowar (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ WP:PRESERVE Can be summarized in a few words to say: fix it, don’t delete it. Tpiwowar (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a reasonable topic for a list, but it is completely unsourced (WP:V) and undated, and as such worse than useless in a very fast-changing market. Can be rewritten from scratch with sources and dates if somebody really wants to. Sandstein 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep.~~ Simply examining the list demonstrates the spuriousness of the claim that the list "is completely unsourced." The list's primary assertion is that the listed items exist. Most of the items in the list are linked to WP articles about the listed items. WP:V reasonably states that “Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself.” Is not a direct link to a WP article the best way to demonstrate that a WP article exists? How else would one demonstrate that a WP article exists? What additional evidence do you require? TPiwowar 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ~~Keep.~~ The assertion that a topic should be excluded from WP because it is "fast-changing" is novel. Do we really want to go there? Editors were working on keeping this article up to date. Before this article was suspended it was being updated at the rate of 1 or 2 edits per month. Do you have a source for your claim that this topic is so "fast-changing" that we dare not attempt to write it down? TPiwowar 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpiwowar (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iloog[edit]

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

The subject of the article is an unremarkable respin of the Gentoo Linux distribution that does not satisfy the general notability guideline. The article is unreferenced; and no coverage in reliable secondary sources could be found in Google using +iloog +linux -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum as the query. Similarly, Google News and Books returns no results relevant to indicating notability. Rilak (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom: unreferenced, non-notable software fork. Article was created by an SPA, so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:58, 10 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) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest natural disasters from 2000 to 2011[edit]

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

This page is more or less useless. A lot of this is subject to personal opinion as a "big natural disaster" is completely relative to the area in question. Regardless, this type of article is best suited for an end of the year news story, not an encyclopedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the event this article is kept, its scope and title ought to be changed. It would make more sense to say "Biggest natural disasters of the 21st century" or something like that. There's no particular significance to the period from 2000 to 2011. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out by the nom, there is no way for this to be anything by a personal opinion on the matter, disasters listed range from high death toll, but low economic cost, to very few deaths and large economic cost. Even if criteria for inclusion could be nailed down, having the article cover 2000-2011 makes no sense. 11 years? Monty ₈₄₅ 03:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article states the criterion as: "as determined by largest number of casualties", so the complaint that this is just "personal opinion" is unfounded. A better name would be: "List of the deadliest natural disasters from 2001 to 2011". --Lambiam 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new section Ten deadliest natural disasters of the 21th century of List of natural disasters, after pruning the list to the ten deadliest ones. --Lambiam 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps incorporate into a much more general chronological list of natural disasters, (after improving to get sources), but taken for all time, with perhaps one page per century. Certainly this page itself is not adding anything new beyond its ordering, and should be deleted with that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.201 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 6 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.