< 7 June	9 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 closed as moot. Article has been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by User:Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Apollo Barman[edit]

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

From the contested PROD: Insufficient evidence of the multiple, significant coverage that the notability guidelines indicate is required for inclusion in Wikipedia Eeekster (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant autobio with no independent reference. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, possible speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - autobio of a non-notable. (Removed a bit of vandalism; don't know if I got it all.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (You didn't. I got a bit more...) If there was evidence for any of this - hang on, there is... Apollo Software appears to be a project of his at NJIT - http://web.njit.edu/~aab25/projects.html and from his CV it looks like he's looking for an IT job as of 2011. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Paradise[edit]

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

Cleanly, this article has only one source, and this flash cartoon is not notable. JJ98 (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any sources that would demonstrate the notability of this flash cartoon. Reyk _YO! 09:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, borderline spam ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Looks like advertisment / promotional article. Starionwolf (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the coverage of the subject is not enough to establish notability even as an activist. She certainly does not meet the standard set out in WP:PROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Blackwell[edit]

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

non-notable academic, certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF. There are some news hits because of her anti-Israel activism in the AUT/UCU, but if that's the only basis for an article then we've got WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:Prof, but Blackwell's notoriety comes from her political activism not her research. Curiously, it is this material that somebody keeps deleting from her article, thereby making her a candidate for deletion. Also, there have been at least two cases in which she has been discussed in the media (admittedly, both related to Israel), which would appear to discount deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E. Famousdog (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've just confirmed that it's BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am struggling to wrap my mind how a career in Anti-Israel activism that spans years is somehow a single event. I am forced to just throw out the nominator's reasoning entirely. WP:PROF obviously does not apply here, because she is not well known for being a professor, but for her activism. There are sources entirely about her, such as this, along with a bunch of other sources discussing her, a search of which including Israel can be found here. Silver seren^C 22:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria as listed in the guideline to have an article. I notice also, that editors have edit warred to keep mention of anti-semitic allegations in the article. Yet another piece of evidence as to why Wikipedia probably shouldn't have BLPs in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disheartening how many people ignore the top part of the criteria, which states, "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." She clearly meets the WP:GNG from the numerous news articles and books discussing her. Just because she doesn't meet ACADEMIC doesn't mean she is non-notable, it just means that she isn't automatically notable due to that guideline. Silver seren^C 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject could attain notability either for her academic work through WP:Prof or through her anti-semitic activism through WP:GNG but the sources do not seem sufficient for either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

How, exactly, are the sources not sufficient? Please elaborate. Silver seren^C 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are lots of organisations, large and small, that are making the news regarding decisions to boycott Israeli suppliers, partners, etc. They are not individually notable; they are newsworthy because of the theme, and should be covered within the pages of Boycotts of Israel. Likewise a lot of people are called anti-Semitic, predictably followed by denials. A biography is only desirable if the public have an enduring reason to better understand the person who has made a unique (or at least memorable) contribution to progress, culture, etc. I dont see it in this instance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability. Coverage in a few Guardian articles certainly doesn't cut it. I did find the "personal pronouns" bit interesting, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete The notability claim is difficult: seems to be borderline not notable. Doesn't meet standards for academic notability. Is only mentioned in the articles in the very narrow context of her work on the boycotts. If she was a more prominent leader and they focused more on her it might be different. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Starionwolf (talk) 19:14, 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 Delete. There is a consensus below that this article contains nothing but non-notable trivia. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil spoofs[edit]

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

This article was created to pull it out of the main Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article (see the talk page) because it was trivia. An article only about trivia is not notable and the one reference for this entire article is weak. Spidey104 21:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Spidey104 21:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As listcruft trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a trivia repository or a guide to every spoof, parody, pastiche or homage of a character. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Daredevil (Marvel Comics). Amongst the most entertaining Marvel Comics spoofs are those of Daredevil. Can't delete content about Daredevil spoofs. No way. Even if it is poorly put together with bad English and looks like a list. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft of OR trivia. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. WP:Listcruft, it fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a trimmed down version with Daredevil (Marvel Comics). I don't see any reason why appearances in Not Brand Echh or What The--?! can't be covered in a brief section there. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:45, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs deemed the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever

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

This page is not neutral. Each entry has only one reference, meaning that there might only be one person who feels it belongs here, which goes against WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, this page is very incomplete. If someone completely rewrites this to include more songs and references, then MAYBE it could be kept. JDDJS (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this and similar articles need care to avoid bias, and if the list was very poorly sourced to random blogs and podcasts I'd agree it might be a deletion candidate. However, the article is actually pretty well sourced and sources like Blender and VH1 are generally considered reliable for music topics. Thus, no convincing reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the sources aren't reliable. I am just saying that it's biased when you only have one person's opinion. For an article like this, every entry should have multiple sources. JDDJS (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced why inclusion on this list would require multiple sources when facts in general require only one. Whether the song "Touch My Bum" sucks or not is hardly such a volatile matter that Wikipedia needs to create a special rule for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a special rule. It's WP:UNDUE. Just because one person thinks it's the worst song, doesn't mean it's the common opinion. For example, Who Let the Dogs Out is on the list, even though it is a popular song and as far as I know, only that one person thinks it's the worst. It should be proven that the song has received mostly negative reviews. JDDJS (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very subjective list, with music opinions offered by people and media sources that have no clout in terms of determining musical tastes. So what if Dave Barry hates "MacArthur Park"? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if Dave Barry hates MacArthur Park? So he's a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist who wrote a bestselling book on the subject after conducting a survey in which tens of thousands of people participated. If that's not a reliable enough source for you, I can't imagine what ever possibly could be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reliable source because Dave Barry is (allegedly) a comedy writer, not a music scholar. His approach to the subject is strictly for cheap laughs, not serious music scholarship. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced well, needs expansion perhaps. Perfectly neutral in that it is open to include the results of any major poll on the subject. Can't see anything wrong with it. Bienfuxia (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well sourced list with clear inclusion criteria, with references from well established and respected outlets. Lugnuts (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Andrew Lehan's argument that the sources are reliable. However, for this list to pass WP:NOTDIR, it has to be shown that the fact that these songs have been deemed the worst is a non-trivial link between them, and I see very little evidence of that. Many of these songs have been "deemed the worst" despite having been commercial successes or even having positive critical reviews. We wouldn't have a list of songs considered the best, and the same reasoning applies. Anthem 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Starblind. WereWolf (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My real problem with this article is the name, it doesn't define why a song is "deemed the worst" Could be lyrically, musically, promotionally, arrangement-wise, choice of artist or a 100 other reasons. I not happy with "worst of" or it's opposite, "best of" anything. Worst of houses? Worst of wines? Or even, horror of horrors, "worst WP article," I hope you all get my drift... However, if the article was called something along the lines of "Songs that have topped "worst of" polls" I can't see I could have an objection. I also think that those who are saying there should be more than one reference are actually thinking along the same lines as me. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we normally discuss name changes on the article talk page--it does not require an AfD.and if that is your only objection, your comment would seem to be best interpreted as a keep. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a notable topic for a list, Reliable sources have discussed the idea of the "worst song ever" and suggested candidates. Issues with incompleteness or neutrality can be solved with normal editing rather than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every entry is qualified and has a ref. The article could do with some expansion but it is worthy of inclusion on WP. —Half Price 23:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see this as violating WP:UNDUE - if anything, it helps to prevent such material being included in the individual song articles. So long as reliable sources are cited for each entry, there's no POV issue either. As for the WP:NOTDIR argument, the topic of the "worst ever songs" as a whole has been covered by reliable sources, not just in the context of individual songs (examples include this and this). I'm just not seeing a case for deletion here. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it seems there are reasonable reasons for keeping the article can we rename to keep in line with the lede that says "The following is a list of some songs topping polls for worst songs" because they are not, per se, the worst songs, only VOTED to be the worst songs.

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given above. by Alzerian and others. And, since this will be third successive keep, and the consensus is quite clear and stable, re-nomination within the next two years would seem unhelpful. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rebecca Black's Friday is the best song ever, so this list is horribly flawed beyond repair. Perhaps this article could exist if it wasn't a list article, but an article discussing the concept of selecting worse songs ever, because this is typical magazine fodder, and it should include notable examples. Thus, even "Friday," can be included because numerous news sources suggested it was one of the worst songs of all time. Those sources were all wrong, however.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could stand to have some better sourcing and layout but this is a reasonable topic for a list. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz agha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N » nafSadh did say 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above reasoning. The NICE ref appears to be legit but everything else seems to be self published. Either way non notable. N^oformation ^Talk 20:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking through the ghits on him, anything that at first appears significant is his own work or from entities he is directly involved in. WP:N applies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approve - A number of references from a broad range of sources have now been added to the article to support the content. --Riaz12 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gorman (artist)[edit]

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

Previously BLPPROD derailed by original author putting a link to art gallery site for subject. Questionable notability Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy delete as spam. "Exuberant in life, his art comes at the viewer like a churning locomotive demanding attention, demanding a response." ... really, now? Wikipedia is not a sales brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 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 WP:BOLD redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2006. Neutrality^talk 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida's 5th congressional district election, 2006[edit]

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

There is no reason to continue to maintain this page because all of the information found here--which isn't much--and so much more can be found at the general article for House of Representatives elections in Florida in 2006 Tqycolumbia (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Meph^talk 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2006. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. It's possible that some of the other district elections from that year can be merged/redirected as well, if someone were so inclined. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable election, so it could easily be covered on the parent article without taking up too much space. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:25, 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) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trackn.me[edit]

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

There do not appear to be any third-party reliable sources to support notability of this product. I can find no reliable Google hits. The two references the author provided in response to the PROD is the iTunes info and purchase page, and a website where anyone can upload information about an Android App. Neither are reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some third party news items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engrkrishan (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a GPS tracking service for mobile phones. Inclusions in non-notable online top 10 lists and the like do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:25, 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 Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Doxtator[edit]

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

Unsourced 1 paragraph BLP created by a new user with a likely COI given their userpage. eldamorie (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Notability is not even asserted. Search for reliable sources yields nothing. Tagged A7. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 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 no consensus. It has been a month since the original listing, with 3 relistings. IAs there have been no additional comments for 10 days, I guess there is no consensus to delete. I myself have no opinion of this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Valles[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD; no reason given for removal, although the editor did add some references. Original reason was: Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG. Founder of a non-notable business (page already deleted) and reported for a local ABC affiliate. No Google news hits. Article was created by a WP:SPA and is probably an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Pburka (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have seen some of James Valles' previous reports for WTVM-TV and journalists with similar profiles also have Wikipedia profiles. Also Primo Multimedia, Inc. seems like a credible company, although they are still a start-up. I'd say keep. Michael5046 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Add comment - Reading back on this: If there is a decision to keep, the article should be rewritten to make it sound less like an advertisement. There is no need for 3 photos, for example. Michael5046 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 18 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) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 23:21, 26 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) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have reviewed the WTVM-TV broadcasts and sites cited as references and profile seems to be worthy of keeping. He does have commercial television experience. I agree with the point made about other journalists and talent, even those often with no commercial television, have Wikipedia profiles. My vote is to keep. Talkgensis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
— Talkgensis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF to understand why this argument about other journalists isn't valid. If you can point out some of these other non-notable journalists, I'd be happy to nominate them for deletion, as well. Pburka (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you Pburka. That's nice of you. This reporter seems legit and notable. I have reviewed youtube videos, current clippings on local NBC/ABC affiliates, a few articles, and his latest work. The main reason that this profile, which has existed for more than two years might I note, was nominated for deletion was that it was unreferenced. References have been added. I agree with Michael5046 that perhaps it can be tweaked. But, I vote to keep. Talkgensis (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While I have no doubt that he's legit, I don't see how he's notable. Which aspects of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG does he satisfy? Pburka (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 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, T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Library Corporation (TLC)[edit]

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

Advertising. The wording in the article is promotional, and the article uses exclusively and extensively uses the companies own branding for the products (e.g. "Library•Solution"). The creator of the article, Jessdfacts (talk · contribs), has had problems with promotional contributions before, and in fact all of their edits appear to be related to "The Library Corporation".

Of the refs supplied, only maybe 2 or 3 actually verify notability. The rest are: self published, "submitted by", PR/awards, and stories noting that a library uses their products. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator admits that two or three of the references verify notability. If the topic is notable, then the solution to a promotional tone is to edit the article to reflect a neutral point of view , not to delete an article about a notable topic. We are here to improve an encyclopedia, not to reduce it or to delete legitimate encyclopedic content. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article needs to be renamed to The Library Corporation.Curb Chain (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with doing that once the discussion concludes. Thank you. Jessdfacts (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for reviewing my page and offering opinions. As the article's creator, there are a few points I would like to add to the discussion. I am new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if this response should have been posted elsewhere.

I wrote this article because I support the mission of libraries. Today's libraries cannot function without automation systems, which are the modern-day equivalent of Dewey Decimal System card catalogs. The Library Corporation (TLC) is a leading provider of library automation systems, serving more than 700 library systems and thousands of branches worldwide. An objective overview of the company's operations, as well as the operations of its competitors, can be found in the magazine article Automation Marketplace 2011: The New Frontier, which was published April 1, 2011, in Library Journal magazine. A link to that article is provided on the TLC Wikipedia page.

I worked diligently to ensure that this article is not promotional, but rather an overview of TLC and its automation products. In my opinion, the article does not include marketing language to promote the company or its products. To bolster my claim, it is important to note what is NOT included in my article. If you visit TLC's Web site, you will find numerous products and services that are secondary to the company's primary role as an automation system provider. Of particular note is the company's claim of offering "an unwavering commitment to customer service and support." This claim permeates all of the marketing materials on the company's Web site, but I considered it to be too subjective for inclusion in a non-biased encyclopedic article.

I did retain some of the company's branding (i.e. "Library•Solution"), but only because those brands are registered trademarks. I did not include branding on non-trademarked products.

The references provided in the article are valid and cite coverage by several national publications: Library Journal, School Library Journal, Scholastic Administrator, American Libraries, and the online-only Library Technology Guides. These are prestigious media outlets, but library automation is not a "sexy" industry that warrants extensive media coverage, which is why there are additional references to articles about libraries that use TLC software. The simple fact is, the majority of media coverage about library automation providers (Sirsi Corporation, OCLC, Follett Corporation, etc.) is limited to reports about libraries that use their products. Additionally, some media outlets that cover the library automation industry do not have an online presence (i.e. Advanced Technology Libraries, a national publication based in Millwood, N.Y.), or have Web sites that require a paid subscription to access archived articles. Please note that I did not provide any links to TLC-related articles on Web sites such as Newswire Today and Press Release Point because these are public-relation outlets, not objective reporting firms. Also note that I am unaware of any "submitted by" or PR references in the TLC article, but I did cite two references to awards. The Movers and Shakers and Best in Tech 2009 awards are highly coveted national honors that, in the library automation industry, are on par with an Oscar or Pulitzer, which is why I felt justified in including those references in the TLC article.

Finally, I would like to address OSborn's point about my previous "problems with promotional contributions." This is true but somewhat misleading because those problems were encountered before The Library Corporation (TLC) page was published. This is the first Wikipedia page that I have created, and there was a steep learning curve. I made several mistakes during the article's creation, all of which I rectified. By the time I was ready to share my article with the public, I requested feedback and received only one comment (I was asked to do a better job organizing the external links, which I did). The article was published more than a week ago and, until it was nominated for speedy deletion, did not garner any negative comments. For the purposes of this discussion, allow me to share the article's ratings as of June 3, 2011: Trustworthy, 4.0; Objective, 3.5; Complete, 4.0; Well-written, 4.0.

Thank you for considering these points as you consider the page's deletion nomination. If you have questions or would like to contact me outside of this forum, please do so at User talk:Jessdfacts. Jessdfacts (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:50, 31 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, T. Canens (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the general notability guideline. I do not believe the style of this article is promotional enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion or fall under the criteria of WP:!. Anthem 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [2]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the references, it appears to meet WP:CORP. It can be hard to write articles about semi-obscure companies without coming across as too positive, but having mild POV issues isn't a good reason to delete the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not personally familiar with the company's products, which are designed for other kinds of libraries than the ones I have worked in, but it is clear from the references it's a major company with significant market share. The article needed some trimming, and I have just done it. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 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 no consensus for both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entaxonic & Mesaxonic[edit]

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

As it stands, a dictionary definition. Once you think about it though, it's unlikely to grow into anything meaningful. Individual species might chart transitions to or from "entaxonic" limbs, but this page isn't. Also mesaxonic by the same measure. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added an AFD for mesaxonic and redirected it here. These should both be handled together. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
week keep - I think a few paragraphs could be squeezed out, such as at digitigrade and plantigrade, etc. If not, then there should probably be an appropriate article that both definitions can be merged into, whether currently existing or just waiting to be made... - UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to limb development. I don't see much hope of standalone articles for these two, but the broader topic probably deserves mention in that parent article. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I think these are interesting terms, and probably notable. However, as the nom says, these articles are dicdefs. Wiktionary is the place for dicdefs. Currently, neither of these words is on Wiktionary (I just checked). Maybe they should be there instead of here. ----Smeazel (talk) 04:55, 24 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, Sandstein 05:35, 31 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, T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 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 redirect to Internet Chess Club. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Live[edit]

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

There is no reference showing that this website is notable. SyG (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with World Chess Network to Internet Chess Club. The ICC network of chess sites is notable, but they could be covered in the parent article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Chess Club, more or less per Anetode, if it weren't for the fact that most of the content looks like advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Canbaz[edit]

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

This person does not seem notable to me. SyG (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in case anyone is wondering 'a chess opening book' is a piece of software not a traditional book - so he is not a writer. Subject seems to have no notablity (or claim of notability), so could be a candidate for speedy deletion perhaps? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any non-trivial coverage of him in Reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD tag had been removed, I've just restored it. Some content added also. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost an A7 speedy candidate. There is no evidence that the business he runs is particularly notable. Regarding the chess merits, authorship of unreviewed books does not confer notability per WP:AUTHOR. Directing tournaments is only a claim to significance if the tournaments are of Grandmaster level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The confusion with cinquain can be resolved editorially (merge, redirect, disambiguate) as per any consensus that may emerge among editors. Sandstein 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quintain (poetry)[edit]

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

Article is simply a dictionary definition in contravention of WP:NOT#DICDEF, and without scope for expansion gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:LespasBot (not a bot!) created this page (identical but for the title) after Quintain(5lines) was AfD'd with same rationale. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment So I won't bother creating Octotain (poetry), then ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Octave (poetry) The Steve 05:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly a notable topic in poetry. "Quintain poetry" gives me 2100 hits on Google Books and 762 on Google Scholar. Is it really likely that it is "without scope for expansion"? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear potential for expansion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For some expansion possibilities, see Quatrain The Steve 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article Cinquain which is the more generally known term encompassing all 5-line poetry forms. In what sense would any expansion of Quintain (poetry) not simply duplicate that article? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because cinquain is the general term for a class of poems of five lines, namely the class of forms invented by Adelaide Crapsey in 19213. The class of all poems of five lines is more general. It is possible that cinquain should be merged into quintain at some stage. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to the Crapsey cinquain. The term 'cinquain' is indeed the general term for the class of 5-liners, long predating Crapsey. See Brittanica, Dictionary.com, our own Cinquain article. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting the article Cinquain which states, as I did above, Cinquain is the general term for a class of poetic forms that employ a 5-line pattern. Unfortunately that article appears to have no reliable sources, so I also refer to: Crapsey created the verse form of the cinquain [3]; Miss Crapsey was distinguished for the invention of the cinquain [4]; The cinquain, created by Crapsey, is the only serious poetic form to emerge from the United States [5]; cinquain is a poetic form developed by the American poet Adelaide Crapsey. [6]; " Quintain: A stanza or verse group of five lines." That seems to be the only definition given by anyone. A special form as a complete poem is the cinquain. [7]; the cinquains of Adelaide Crapsey, her invention, and, so far as I know, not duplicated by any other writer [8] ... Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion here. None of the sources you cite contradicts my assertion, and no-one is arguing with your assertion that Crapsey invented a specific form which she called cinquain. Put simply, the term cinquain refers to the class of all 5-line verse forms as well as the subset of that class which is Crapsey cinquains. That is precisely what Brittanica and dictionary.com assert, and there is no reason to doubt them. Additionally, the Douglas Harper Etymology Dictionary informs us that the term dates from 1882, i.e. pre-Crapsey. Yes, quintain also means "a stanza or verse group of five lines", but the solution hardly lies in keeping separate articles for two synonyms. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is. For example, John Drury, author of "The Poetry Dictionary", ISBN 1582973296, must be confused when he writes CINQUAIN a poetic form invented by Adela Crapsey. The term is also used for any five-line stanza along with quintain and QUINTAIN a five-line stanza, sometimes called a cinquain (although the term is now usually applied to a stanza developed bu Adelaide Crapsey); so is Philip Hobsbaum, in "Metre, rhythm and verse form" ISBN 041508797X who also thinks they are different things; as are Jack Elliott Myers and Don C. Wukasch in their "Dictionary of poetic terms", who believe that QUINTAIN a poem or stanza in five lines, specific forms are CINQUAIN ... and CINQUAIN a five-line form composed of lines of two, four, six, eight and teo syllables ... in this sense first used by Adelaide Crapsey; Ottone Riccio, "The intimate art of writing poetry" ISBN 0134768469 who thinks that CINQUAIN A syllabic five-line poem not to be confused with the five-line stanza called quintain. How lucky all these people are that they have Wikipedia to correct them. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) My point exactly, Cribb. Do we really want to add to the confusion by creating a new article for a synonym? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I really must try and get the hang of this humour thing. My point is that when six reliable sources explicitly assert that quintains and cinquains are not the same thing, and when six reliable sources state that cinquain now refers to the form invented by Ms Crapsey, then we are not in any position to declare that quintain is a synonym for cinquain. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is entirely out of place. This is not a chat forum. The quotes you provide are not as clear-cut as you are putting forward. You quote Drury, for example, to say, The term [cinquain] is also used for any five-line stanza along with quintain. The fact remains that the term generally understood to refer to any five-line form is cinquain, hence the fact that neither Britannica.com nor dictionary.com have any entry for quintain, as neither did Wikipedia until a few days ago. This would seem to argue for keeping cinquain in this sense in recognition of the needs of Recognizability and Naturalness as supported by WP:TITLE. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are asserting (1) cinquain is the generally understood term for any five-line form (2) cinquain and quintain are synonyms. I have provided six reliable sources that contradict (1) and six that contradict (2). They are all secondary sources, in peer-reviewed journals or books by experts. You rely on two tertiary sources, an encyclopaedia and a dictionary, and even the dictionary case only supports (1) as a historical usage. It is perfectly true that usage is not completely clear-cut, as one would expect in such a wide-ranging field: it is also true that the pre-1900 usages of cinquain was broader. But the proposition that this article should be deleted because it can only be a duplicate of another clearly does not hold. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I raised the deletion discussion notice, but am now persuaded that the confusion and overlap highlighted by the above discussion can be better addressed within the context of keeping rather than deleting the article in question. Thanks for the clear elucidation of your position, SC. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:08, 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) 00:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Ranade[edit]

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

Non-notable, music is self-released, no Google hits which are reliable sources. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Hekerui (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hekerui--Sodabottle (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits on Yahoo! either, unless Sandeep is interviewed by a TV station or a magazine/newspaper, notability can't be established. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:36, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings for Major League Baseball on "X" broadcasts[edit]

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

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

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

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

Nominated as per comment and rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratings for Major League Baseball on TBS broadcasts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is overly detailed info presented in list form. It would be better placed in the articles on the relevant series or season pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AS 3780-2008: the storage and handling of corrosive substances[edit]

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

This article describing an obscure dangerous materials handling standard does not appear to be on a notable topic. The article seems to have been one of a series of articles on similar obscure topics created as part of an university project - this has been discussed at: WP:AWNB#New articles on the handling of dangerous materials. This article was nominated for prod deletion by Boulevardier (talk · contribs), but this was disputed. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are all How to comply guides, not encyclopedic at all. possible copyvio from the standard too. The-Pope (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources suggest anything that would pass our notability guidelines - in particular, there has been no "significant coverage" that would allow us to write an encyclopedia article rather than a summary of the standard bou·le·var·dier (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and notability guidelines. The scategory of standards might be notable enough for a section in some umbrella article, but this one by itself doesn't pass muster. LordVetinari (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply copying a standards guide and expecting it to be a WP article is unacceptable. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By My Side (David Choi song)[edit]

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

He is notable, but this song fails under the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. EspañolDaLanguage!AmorEspaña! (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. Internet searches shows up lyrics, videos or download sites, which only attests to the fact that it exists but there are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability, eg charts, awards etc.--Michaela den (talk) 10:11, 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 keep. If there is a good reason given for deletion somewhere in this sock-infested discussion, I certainly can't see it. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Jackson[edit]

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

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

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

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

The principal source of this article, Suzanne O. Campbell, of San Angelo, Texas, requests that this article be deleted on the grounds that the article conflicts with a potential book on the subject. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query: In what sense does this article "conflict" with a potential book? And, given the copyright and licensing agreements entered into willingly by every Wikipedia editor every time they edit an article, why is a potential commercial consideration a valid reason for removing a well-written, properly researched article from the encyclopedia? (Pending compelling answers to these questions, Keep.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material for the article was largely taken from a public lecture given by Suzanne O. Campbell at the West Texas Historical Association meeting on April 2, 2011, in Lubbock, Texas. She requested that the article be deleted because she is planning to write or is writing a book on the subject. She had also given a similar lecture in February in San Angelo, Texas, before that city's genealogical society. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not clear on how a 500-ish word article would prevent any author from writing a book about the subject. Nor am I at all comfortable with the notion of deleting a cited article about a notable person simply to meet a third-party's commercial objectives. The information was presented publicly in a lecture. (Insert your favorite metaphor about the unringing of bells here.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Dravecky; I was honoring Ms. Campbell's request. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then my "Keep" !vote stands. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravecky. No valid rationale given for deletion, and no apparent grounds for doing so.--JayJasper (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why we should delete an article because someone wants to write a book about the subject of the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the principal source of the article. The book is an scholarly endeavor and not for commercial gain. This is an research endeavor that spans over 15 years. If I had wanted it on Wikipedia, I would have put it there. My main objection to the article is that it is full of incorrect information. I do not wish to correct Mr. Hathorn's mistakes. At best one-half of his 500-ish word article is correct.Scampbel1928 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Scampbel1928 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Errors in an article are cause for correction, not deletion, and I'm surprised to find a scholar who prefers that a subject on which she is an expert remain improperly covered (since this article is almost certainly going to be kept) rather than correct the record, especially on so widely read a site as Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It appears that the issue is with Mr. Hathorn's inability to accurately portray the information obtained in an unpublished secondary source. I believe the information in this article will remain inaccurate until Mr. Hathorn or someone else chooses to actually research primary sources on the subject. To imply that the author of this article holds no responsibility for publishing inaccurate information is unrealistic. As far as I can discern, the only person capable of correcting the information, Ms. Campbell, refuses to divulge the fruits of her years-long research endeavor on such an ephemeral medium. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Liberalinwesttexas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete In my opinion, if the principal source of the article wanted the information available through wikipedia she would have put it there. Since this is not the case, the responsibility to supply accurate information falls to Mr. Hathorn who, it appears, has done no research on the subject. It is absurd to now place the burden of correcting Mr. Hathorn's inaccuracies on someone attempting to produce a solid scholarly work rather than an encyclopedic entry on a website of this nature. What I cannot figure out is what motivates someone to attend a lecture and then presume that they have enough knowledge to adequately write an article about the topic.Cathop (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Cathop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: "There are errors in this brief article but I won't tell you what they are because I'm writing a book" is neither very scholarly or a valid reason for deletion. Would you accept a book review that said "The book is about half-true and should be recalled by the publisher and pulped"... and then expect the publisher to do so on that basis alone? I would hope not, if only for the sake of all the paper that would be wasted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Keep the article as is, but remove any reference to the presentation by Ms. Campbell. There is no way to check the source, as it was presented orally, so there is absolutely no way to verify any of the information directly (outside of actual research, which the wiki-community seems to abhor). I am appalled by the blatant disregard for accuracy displayed by this group of participants of this discussion. Dravecky suggests that once information is on this website, regardless of its accuracy, it is set-in-stone and the responsibility of the principal source's author not the author of the wikipage to correct the problem. This case seems somewhat unusual in the sense that there are no published secondary sources that can be consulted. Dravecky has continued to throw the "scholar card" up attempting to appeal to some sense of obligation from Ms. Campbell. Ironically, the "scholar card" should be used against Billy Hathorn, a Ph.D. in history, who is allowing this misrepresentation to continue. The presentation was made in a scholarly setting with an implicit understanding that that is how it would be used. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: It's fine to point out that there are errors in the article and nobody is claiming Ms, Campbell is responsible for fixing them... but what are the errors? I don't know either Ms. Campbell or Mr. Hathorn, as you apparently do, so I can only work with the edits made to the article as it exists. As they stand, claims of error are vague and unsubstantiated. Surely more effort has been expended here trying to delete the article than it could have taken to fix (or at least tag) it. - Dravecky (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: The fact remains that if you remove the citation of the unpublished presentation by Ms. Campbell the entire article is baseless. As I have pointed out, there are no published secondary sources that can be used to back up any assertion made in this article. If the goal of this encyclopedia is to present accurate, verifiable information that is well-written, this entry is an utter failure. Any college freshman knows that any claim must be backed up by a source, how is this any different? There is no way that I can expect to provide a better account because I, like Billy Hathorn, have not done any research on George Jackson. Unlike the author of this entry, however, I do not presume to have the requisite knowledge to write an accurate article on George Jackson nor correct this one. I am new to the wikipedia community. I am solely commenting on this thread because it affects Ms. Campbell, whom I do know. I can tell you as I have been writing this rebuttal that I noticed the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" statement that appears directly below the editing window. If any one of you can produce the document upon which this entire article is based I will drop the subject completely. As Ms. Campbell's article has never been published, I believe you will have a difficult time. Furthermore, the article that defines "verifiable" also says that the article cannot be based on original research. If that is true, then only secondary sources are applicable for this encyclopedia. As there are no published secondary sources, and Ms. Campbell's research in most certainly original, then it stands to reason that this entry has been published prematurely. For the integrity of this encyclopedia and all it stand for, I suggest the removal of this article until the requisite sources are available. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to users Cathop, Liberalinwesttexas, and Scampbel1928 who have all chosen this discussion for their first (and so far only) edit to Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SPI has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scampbel1928. Not 100% obvious, but certainly suspicious. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rechecked my notes, and everything in the article appears correct. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Just because you took notes at a lecture does not make the source you cite verifiable according to wikipedia standards: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."^[1] Perhaps you can consult with published peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up your assertions just like any other person in the academic world. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The material is primary but becomes secondary when released in a public lecture. I can't imagine what errors are in the article. The material is not complicated and was quite easy to put together in a short article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: That does not change the fact that the source is not verifiable according to Wikipedia standards, and thus should not be used. No one except for you can read the notes that you took during the public presentation of an unpublished paper that has yet to be peer-reviewed. This article has no verifiable source and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalinwesttexas (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would be public information only if a reporter from the Avalanche-Journal had written an article about the lecture, not a participant at the conference? What about a radio broadcast on a subject; can one take notes from that and use it on Wikipedia? Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't understand why you are insistent on the use of hypothetical situations that are not similar to this instance. The paper that you took notes on was not published, nor were your notes. In each of the examples that you ask about, there is a public record that others can access. That being said, the rules for verification are specific and if you read them there will be no further question on this subject. I do not believe a newspaper article written as a summary of an unpublished biographical paper is "appropriate for the content in question" as no historian would accept that as a secondary source. Perhaps a radio broadcast would be acceptable if it presented its sources. Your personal notebook is not a verifiable source. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:The lecturer says that 50 perdent of the article is incorrect.

Is it correct that George Jackson was born in Brunswick County, VA, in 1850?
Was Jackson a buffalo soldier at Fort Concho?
Did 16 saloons in San Angelo ca. 1880 sell the average man in the city 19.4 gallons of whisky per year?
Was Jackson discharged from the Army at Fort Duncan?
Did a Josephine Thompson stab the buffalo soldier Albert Ford to death in Jackson's saloon?
Did Jackson twice a year pay $25 to police for operating a house of ill repute?
Did prostitutes pay $2.50 twice a year for vagrancy at Jackson's saloon?
Did Jackson marry a woman from San Antonio named Mary who mostly lived threreafter in San Antonio?
Was Jackson a petit juror in San Angelo in 1884?
Was Jackson a black public school trustee in 1885?
Did Jackson purchase ranch land at a bargain to the west of San Angelo than then lease his holdings?
Did Jackson address the Republican State Convention in Austin in 1894?
Did Jackson speak out against the Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1893?
Did Jackson attend the McKinley inaugural in 1897?
Was Jackson McKinley's appointee as customs inspector in Presidio, TX?
Did Jackson work well with whites and Democrats?
Did Jackson die in the home of a friend of congenital heart disease at 50? Was this between San Angelo and San Antonio?
Did the Jacksons have no children?
Was Jackson a Methodist and a Mason?
Is Jackson buried at a black Masonic cemetery in San Antonio (not the Alamo Masonic Cemetery there}?
Did Jackson have a business partner named Joe Selby, who died in San Angelo, date not given?
For the article to be half-wrong ten of the preceding questions would have to be answered "No." I recall that all of these points in the lecture were answered "Yes". Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis of American history was presented to a special meeting of the American Historical Association at the World's Columbian Exposition on Chicago, Illinois, and published later that year first in Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, then in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association. It has been subsequently reprinted and anthologized many times, and was incorporated into Turner's 1921 book, The Frontier in American History, as Chapter I."

So, would Turner's thesis have been off limits if it had been limited to a lecture at the historical conference in Chicago? Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yet another hypothetical that does not really apply to this situation. The rules of this website are specific, and no amount of hypothetical situations can change the fact that the sole source of this wikipedia article does not meet the standards of being verifiable. I believe that this entry into the encyclopedia is premature. It will be appropriate when Ms. Campbell or some other historian PUBLISHES an article which can serve as a VERIFIABLE source. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Just for the record, neither your recollections nor your notes are correct.Scampbel1928 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Sandstein 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist theory of value[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of Notability Karbinski (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I was wrong last time, as discussion of the Objectivist theory of value as a sub-topic of Objectivism is not widely covered in secondary sources. --Karbinski (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect works. --Karbinski (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Article's citations are entirely from Rand's works. Barring substantial impact outside of Objectivism, this does not deserve its own article, but should be dealt with in a subsection on the main Objectivism page. TallNapoleon (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). This is a leftover relic of the days when there were separate articles on every aspect of Rand's ideas. Like this one, they were mostly primary-sourced description. A half-dozen others were merged/redirected into the main article on Objectivism. This article's descriptions of Rand's ethics and aesthetics are redundant to the main article, and there is not so much secondary source material as to demand a sub-article at this time. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like a likely content fork of Objectivism, but I'm not a philosopher and don't play one on TV. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as per RL0919's reasonings. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 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) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia v. England (2007)[edit]

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

This is a run of the mill qualifying match with no suprise result, just because it was the match that ruined England's chances of reaching a major tournament, in that case create Scotland v. Italy (2007).Itsupforgrabsnow (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete England and failure go hand-in-hand. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a listing for sports scores. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No indication given by the references that the match was historically significant, and not just something discussed at the time. Matches without such notability shouldn't have individual articles (meaning not every European Championship qualifier gets one), and I don't see any here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not significant, best forgotten. Badgernet ₪ 15:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another football game, not notable or significant. Giant Snowman 11:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a final or anything notable or significant like that Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with what everyone else has said previously. It's no more notable then any other Euro qualifier, and nothing of anything significance happened. Nath1991 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As long as the building is being discussed, it is fine and WP:ORG does not apply. The article itself may need a bit of cleanup, but it is on a notable subject. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick[edit]

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

I submit that there is nothing of substantial interest and that the entry is merely acting as an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Hotel is world wide known per its RMS Olympic First Class Lounge Dining Suite, and other parts of importrant historic ship. Per that it is highly relevant, and notable. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in the light of this new findings about listed building, keep is even stronger. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Fails notability as per WP:ORG. The only notable point is that the dinning suite is fitted from RMS Olympic, which is attributed by its website (ie WP:PRIMARY) and the other source is by "Phil's Web Page" (ie WP:SELFPUBLISH). Neither of which passes "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". If an editor feels strongly about the importance of that piece of information then I was going to sugesst that it be merged into the main article of RMS Olympic, then only to discover that it's already listed in more detail but missing a reference. Therefore I see no reason to keep this article, which might also be considered a WP:CONTENTFORK.--Michaela den (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RMS Olympic#Olympic today. The fact that this hotel used some of the fittings of a notable ship did get some attention in third-party coverage, but the hotel doesn't seem to be notable for anything else. This bit of trivia is worth mentioning, but it's already in the RMS Olympic page and there's not enough coverage about the hotel itself to justify a separate article (unless someone finds some coverage I didn't). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade II listed building.[9] While Grade II listing is not necessarily an automatic qualification for Wikipedia, it is a significant contributing factor to notability and the listing does confirm the notability of the "remarkable" Olympic Room, which would appear to at least partially be the reason for its being listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed building + remarkable (part) interior gives sufficient notability to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alnwick#Landmarks. It still fails notability as per WP:ORG for primary criteria states that "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization", having failed notability and as the article stands now it is not "a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization". However I do agree that the Grade II listing and its' Olympic Dining Suite are worthy of note. Therefore a redirect/merge to Alnwick#Landmarks would make more sense then redirect to RMS Olympic#Olympic today, as the hotel is listed already and the info can be incorporated without much effort. I mean the hotel is in the village and the Olympic fittings are in the hotel, not the other way round. Anyway if other reliable sources are found it can be reverted.--Michaela den (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an organisation, but a building! Hence WP:ORG, which is in any case a guideline and not a set-in-stone policy, does not in any way apply. The only guideline that does is WP:N. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:A hotel is a commercial organization. As the article stood then it did not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. Anyway my point is that it needed more references and now it has, which is good. I think closing admins are sensible enough to see that with the new refs my arguments does not apply anymore. I guess sometimes it takes an AfD to get an article up to wiki standard.--Michaela den (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the building, not whatever company runs it. WP:ORG therefore does not apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that it's a listed building and has received reliable source coverage([10][11][12]), I think notability has been satisfied here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:03, 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 keep. GNG concerns are unfounded. Will move to Raja and Radha Reddy. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drs. Raja Reddy & Radha Reddy[edit]

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

Doesn't really meet WP:GNG. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. Clearly non-notable. Withdrawn - see below AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two artistes are very notable and pass GNG easily (see gbooks) both as individuals and as a group. However, the current title isn't the correct one and there's hardly any content in the article. I don't have time right now, but if someone can think of a good way to handle this (one/two articles? also, his other wife -- who happens to be the sister of the wife included in this article is also part of their dance troupe and is notable too). —SpacemanSpiff 18:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I nominated this for speedy deletion when it was a copyvio but along the way I found what seemed to be good evidence that they are notable. However, the title is rubbish and needs to be changed. Something like "Raja and Radha Reddy", maybe? andy (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've withdrawn my "Delete" in view of the comments on their notability. I agree with andy about the title, and also think the article would need some better sources to survive than the one ref given, which is basically a puff piece. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They received Padma Shri, a well known civil award of India from Indian government.Shyamsunder (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Lots of potential here, plenty of coverage on Google News and Google Books. I added a few to the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename without the "Drs". Tintin 07:16, 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) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miomir Vuković[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Bosnian Premier league, which is not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NomoGaia[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORG - sources provided do not demonstrate notability. Better sources do not appear to exist. ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe try again with it later, after the UN takes its vote and NomoGaia comes into a position of greater prominence. See Talk:NomoGaia. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not (yet) notable organisation being promoted by someone with a declared COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. Also a likely copyright violation. The original first sentences are lifted from here and the author also wrote the now deleted Human Rights Impact Assessment, which contained passages from at least two sources. I find it improbable that only these sentences were lifted and the rest is de novo. --Danger (talk) 23:46, 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 (closing as speedy). Neutrality^talk 14:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ekansh[edit]

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

Bio of a very young Indian mathematician. Total absence of independent references. (The English of this article and of this Wikipedia article suggest that both are written by Ekansh himself.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If his claim of solving the Odd Perfect Number conjecture is true then there should be an article on him, but his paper doesn't seem to have been refereed or published yet. His full(?) name seems to be Ekansh Kumar. Have mathematicians started to follow pop stars and footballers in only using one name?? Dingo1729 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harish-Chandra? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far as I can tell, his claim to be a fellow of Trinity College seems to be false, so that makes me doubtful of everything else he has written. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this list. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence in MathSciNet or Google scholar of actual mathematical publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to show this is not a hoax or a fraud. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete - I've tagged it as BLPROD for now, as there are no references. There's a claim of notability, but no support. Possible speedy as a hoax. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sign of a crank is they claim to have a proof a famous conjecture but somehow no one has published it yet. The fact that much of the article is by a single person also leads me to suspect self-promotion.--RDBury (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total nonsense; a self-promotional hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:51, 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 per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Userfying to User:ZjarriRrethues/Ilir Hoxha. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir Hoxha[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR; only known for one biography. Also, notability is not inherited. Being son of a leader does not make one notable automatically. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Crisco. Notability is not inherited. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia:N. This article hardly gains any notability, search engine results don't seem to show much on him. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist it. Had I found this AfD earlier I'd have started expanding it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Mladen[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSPORT specifically states that youth footballers are not generally notable. He does not meet either of the WP:NSPORT criteria and has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 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) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonweal Institute[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. Although there appear at a glance to be numerous references, they almost all suffer from one or more problems such as: no mention of the subject; only indirect mention of it, (e.g a person mentioned in the source is just stated to be connected to this institute); not independent source; only very minor coverage; do not support the statemnets to which they are attached. (Note: The article was written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest. It has been tagged for over two years for various problems, such as needing proper third party references, being an unpublished synthesis, containing inappropriate citations which do not verify the text, being of questionable notability, etc.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, list of references is misleading. No establishment of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 22:38, 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. The independent source issue is one thing, the other is the fact that much of the article appears to be a copyvio - [13] Black Kite (t) (c) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Set Programming[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A search suggests independent sources may not exist. The only contributors to the article are WP:SPAs. Msnicki (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language seems to be closely related. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it makes sense to discuss the two together. I think all the comments made so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language apply to Mixed Set Programming also. Jowa fan (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page POEM (software) should also be included in this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that one out also. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POEM (software). Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the article "Mixed Set Programming" or merge it into "Natural Constraint Language" because MSP is an even more generic and more abstract scientific concept than NCL. Contributions are welcome. MSP is a very advanced subject to be studied. MSP allows a mathematician to formulate complex problems in a simplified form of mathematical logic (first-order logic, set theoretic reasoning, date/time reasoning, etc.). In this sense, it is a scientific pearl. If so advanced a technology can be applied in industry, it is great. Other words to add are: the concepts of "Mixed Set Programming" and "Natural Constraint Language" are purely scientific concepts, while "POEM" is an industrialized system of the NCL language. Thanks for your understanding. SophiePaul (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Of course I understand your enthusiasm, but in an AfD, it's about notability as established by independent secondary sources, not whether this is important material WP:VALINFO or about a new technology that will soon be important WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. That said, you may be able to clear the bar as sources are found. I don't mind changing my WP:!VOTE if that happens. Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With some others, I have been trying my best to improve according to your comments. In the page of "POEM", the book of Li is about logistics optimization modules developed using POEM. In the page of "Natural Constraint Language", the 3rd and 4th (independent) related works cite Dr Zhou's work and they target similar objectives. MSP is extremely complex and the research work on it is terribly hard. It involves techniques in different fields: operations research (combinatorial optimization/complexity theory/algorithm), logic programming (first-order logic/numerical reasoning/naive set theory), ... SophiePaul (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Poorly written article about apparently non-notable academic work. —Ruud 20:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete I think Wikipedia's requirements for these articles have been met. I have followed the above advices to do necessary improvement by adding secondary sources found by Google search. If anything else still need to be done, please let me know. SophiePaul (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sources have been added since the article was listed. Jowa fan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- And which of those are the significant independent coverage? FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't looked into this in detail. There's enough common ground between this and NCL that I don't feel the need to go through the same process again. I suspect that this group of articles will stand or fall together. Jowa fan (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Papers in a journal of which I can't even verify if it exists or not... —Ruud 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're referring to China Journal of Enterprise Operations Research papers, I suspect it doesn't matter because the authors of those papers appear to be part of the same group or company promoting/developing POEM/NCL/MSP. See [14] for example where H. Ni is a coauthor. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading SophiePaul's comments, I think this article is notable. Petterclp (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Petterclp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep SophiePaul's comments and arguments are reasonable. But please improve. Logicfan (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Logicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another argument for the lack of notability of NCL/POEM/MSP is that there's no mention of any of J. Zhou's work in the comprehensive Handbook of constraint programming (2006). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course, this article needs to be improved. Dr Zhou has published a book and the article can be certainly further developed. My arguments:
- After reading some of Zhou's papers, I believe MSP is a very interesting algorithmic framework.
- Elegant mathematical logic (e.g., quantifier logic and set theory) is applied in solving problems as difficult as set partitioning and VRP.
- MSP is no doubt notable. Ortech123 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Ortech123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There have been a number of "keep"-!votes but they fail to make a policy-based argument that this topic is notable. So Why 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Constraint Language[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A search suggests independent sources may not exist. The only contributors to the article are WP:SPAs. Msnicki (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Both this article and the companion article Mixed Set Programming (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Set Programming) seem to be referenced entirely to the work of one "J. Zhou". They seem to be on highly technical subjects, but the style seems generally informative; they don't read like typical WP:COI text. If they're meant to promote something, I'm so far outside the target market that I didn't notice. No opinion yet on whether this should be kept or deleted. If one is kept, I suspect the other could be merged into it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly highly technical. But generally informative is another matter. I think I know enough about programming languages and compilers and what an NP-hard problem is that if an article on one these topics has been written WP:NOT#JARGON "for everyday readers, not for academics" that after reading it, I should be able guess what it's about. But I have no idea what this thing is or what it does. This article told me nothing. Do you write programs in this language and do they get compiled and run? What do they do? Who can tell. I'm guessing it's yet another academic (in this case a researcher at Microsoft) self-promoting his little-known work. WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:INDISCRIMINATE Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to take a bit more out of it. (I must be a very clever fellow!) I gathered that this theory or research had to do with solving complex problems involving constraints (how do I paint the map with a limited palette, so that no border has the same color on either side? What's the best way from here to the zoo, avoiding traffic jams, stop lights, and extra miles, with each factor weighted?) These problems are mathematically hard, from what I'm told. Solving them is one of the few things humans usually do better with than computers. I don't know enough about the field to suggest a merger subject, but I did want to point out that this seems to be well written technical material of the sort we ought to save somehow if possible. The two articles do seem to be mergeable, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you're just talking about what an NP or NP-hard problem is, not anything this article could have contributed to your knowledge. But what does this Natural Constraint Language stuff have to do with any of that? Do you describe one of these problems and have it tell you if a solution is computable? Does it search for good solutions if perfect ones are too expensive? Or is this just a notation and perhaps an algebra for working these kinds of things on a whiteboard? Who can tell. Msnicki (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People can understand very well that if a mathematician describes an industrial problem naturally in conventional mathematical logic and a computer language can recognize it and solve it efficiently, it is fantastic. NCL can do this. NCL aims to solve industrial problems such as logistics optimization, production scheduling, human resources optimization and other problems. So this is a very hard research and very interesting, though it may be a long and lonely work. SophiePaul (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Keep. The article is based on primary sources by a single author, and therefore doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I spent some time searching Web of Science for more sources, but found nothing useful; I found only two citations of Dr Zhou's articles by other authors, and those papers didn't include any significant discussion of NCL. It seems that a company called Enginest uses NCL, but I don't think that counts as an independent source since Dr Zhou seems to be affiliated with them. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that the article looks interesting and it would be nice to retain this content. However, without seeing an independent source, ideally a secondary source, it's hard to justify keeping it. Jowa fan (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) In the light of the discussion below, and additions to the article, I now believe that the necessary sources exist. The article could still use some work; an explanation of which reference supports which parts of the article would be helpful. Jowa fan (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be some problem with the internet (slow for us to respond). Please try searching on "www.google.com" by typing "NCL Constraint Language". If you only type "NCL" or "Natural Constraint Language", it may not give you sufficient information because there are quite some others also named "NCL". There are many reliable and independent sources citing NCL, including users of NCL, research papers citing or using NCL, and research center links, etc. Even in Mainland China a Book "自然约束语言"(in Chinese) was published in 2009. A book "The NCL Natural Constraint Language" in English will also be published soon. Please note that these Wikipedia articles need to be further developed and it takes time. NCL and "Mixed Set Programming" are purely scientific concepts and research on them are highly advanced. The research work on NCL has been very hard since more than 12 years. This technology has been proved to be very successful in industry. So please help us to improve the quality of these articles. At least please do not delete them. MERCI. SophiePaul (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Using google translate to view that link, I think the author of the book is the same Dr Zhou. Can you name a book or paper on this subject by a different author? Jowa fan (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Related works" is added to indicate relevant works, including POEM and a book on an experimental system based on POEM. By the way, Google Scholar search for "J. Zhou: Introduction to the constraint language NCL" can tell more relevant works and citations. Thanks for your attention. SophiePaul (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I don't see independent coverage. Self-promotion of academic topics is still self-promotion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. 1) Please retain the articles "Natural Constraint Language" and "Mixed Set Programming". They are about new subjects, fundamental and are significant for industrial applications. Independent research work since more than 12 years by J.Zhou (who is not in academy, no need for academic promotion) should be respected scientifically. A search for "NCL Constraint Language" on Google can tell that there are many sources about NCL and MSP. 2) Please do not merge NCL and MSP. They are different subjects. "Natural Constraint Language" is about a computer programming language for modeling and solving problems. "Mixed Set Programming" is about an algorithmic framework. 3) For NCL, there is a journal paper "J.Zhou. Introduction to the constraint language NCL. JLP 45(1-3): 71-103(2000)". A book "The NCL Natural Constraint Language" in English will be published soon. These two Wikipedia articles will also be further developed to provide readers with detailed knowledge. Merci. SophiePaul (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In reply to point (1): I did search on Google before I made my comments above. What we need is sources that are reliable and independent. I didn't see anything that looked suitable. Have you read WP:GNG carefully? If you can provide links to appropriate sources according to those guidelines, then it may be possible to keep the article. Jowa fan (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POEM (software) for an example of an independent source that's also relevant here. I think we still need at least one more independent source. Jowa fan (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Related works" is added to indicate relevant works, including POEM and a book on an experimental system based on POEM. It seems that recently some other researchers are working toward similar objectives, but they are still quite different from NCL. Please be understanding that further development on these Wikipedia articles is being prepared. It takes some time. Thanks. SophiePaul (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The book by Li appears to be about logistics in general. (Sorry, I don't have access to a copy of the book, I'm just going by Google's translation of the web page.) Does it contain significant coverage of NCL? It's not clear that the other related works have anything to do with NCL at all. More information is needed! Jowa fan (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed that the book is about logistics optimization modules developed using POEM. All math models (vehicle routing, production scheduling, etc) are programmed in NCL and run in POEM. So that work is closely-related to POEM/NCL. The 3rd and 4th (independent) related works cite Dr Zhou's work (result of 12 years ago) and they target similar objectives. A question might be: if a subject is extremely complex and the research work on it is terribly hard and nobody else works on it, Wikipedia will reject an article on such a result? NCL involves techniques in different scientific fields: programming language (formalism/grammar theory/compiler/parser/pattern recognition), operations research (combinatorial optimization/complexity theory/algorithm), logic programming (first-order logic/numerical reasoning/naive set theory),... SophiePaul (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Given SophiePaul's statements that the article will be improved in the future, is it worth considering incubation for this article (and related articles)? Jowa fan (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With some others, I have been trying my best to improve according to your comments. And such improvements will continue. Please let me know your further advices if any. By the way, I think when I initiated the articles, I have paid enough attention not to include any "delicate" information (e.g., a company name) so that it is not considered a "publicity". In fact, if Wikipedia could host a document I would have uploaded Dr Zhou's papers into Wikipedia's space instead of linking to the current sites. SophiePaul (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Poorly written article about apparently non-notable academic work. —Ruud 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "poorly written" really a reason for deletion? Jowa fan (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article could be improved perhaps not. However, SophiePaul seems to be the only person with access to independent sources that are claimed to exists. Given his peacock term filled language at this AfD and incomprehensible writing skills demonstrated in the current articles, I have no doubt he will fail at this task. —Ruud 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept The article is improved by adding more reliable and independent sources. 1) Dr Zhou had quitted academy and had worked in industry since 1999 before his NCL paper was published. 2) (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997), describing a pre-prototype of NCL and scheduling, is only a tiny part of (Zhou 2000). 3) "Ridiculously", (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997) receives much more attention (16+29 = 45 citations in GS). It is even cited by Prolog's inventor Alain Colmerauer's paper. See comments below. 4) Recent NCL (Zhou 2009) is far more advanced than (Zhou 2000). 5) A book in English has already be finished. And it certainly will help develop the article. 6) Hope this answers your comments. SophiePaul (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not delete I think Wikipedia's requirements for these articles have been met. I have followed the above advices to do necessary improvement by adding secondary sources found by Google search. If anything else still need to be done, please let me know. SophiePaul (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're only supposed to WP:!VOTE once, SophiePaul. Msnicki (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What sources are now being offered in support of notability? Since being nominated for AfD, I see that all kinds of supposed sources have been added. But what is this junk? I'm pretty darn sure that Don Knuth, Noam Chomsky and Aho and Ullman did not have anything to say about NCL. This is nonsense. You really only need 2 decent independent articles or mentions to establish notability and I still don't see them. Instead, all I see is a lot dust being thrown in the air. What are the ACTUAL sources offered in support of notability? I think it's still zero. Msnicki (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am mystified by the list of "references". Certainly the article as a whole needs some work. The actual sources I'm interested in are the ones under the heading "related works", specifically the book by Li and the articles Martín et al 2009 and Flener and Pearson 2004. See SophiePaul's comment above, indented and dated 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC). Jowa fan (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Answer The only source mentioning NCL , MSP and POEM seems to be the papers by it's author/inventor J. Zhou. The other references are general computer science text not directly on the subject. —Ruud 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Improved according to your advices. Please see added related works; they are from Google Scholar by searching for "Jianyang Zhou". 1) (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997) presents a pre-prototype of NCL for scheduling. That work is a tiny part of (Zhou 2000). 2) (Bleuzen-Guernalec and Alain Colmerauer 2000) is on "Sorting Constraint" (sorting is fundamental for computer sicence); (Beldiceanu 2000) is on "Global Constraints"; (van Emden 1999) and (Jaulin et al. 2001) are on "Interval Constraints"; they cite (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997). 3) (Martín et al. 2009) and (Flener and Pearson 2004) are on "constraint systems"; they cite (Zhou 2000). 4) (Li 2009) is a book on an experimental system based on POEM/NCL. It presents optimization models programmed in NCL and it helps in teaching students about logistics and optimization. 5) I believe: what is important is the scientific value, not a publication. Dr Zhou did not seek to publish during the past 12 years though around his PhD his publication is remarkable. However, a book in English has just been finished. SophiePaul (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - The paper by Bleuzen-Guernalec and Colmerauer (preview of first page) doesn't say more than "More recently Jianyang Zhou [5] has solved well known difficult job-shop scheduling problems by introducing a sortedness constraint with 3n variables, then extra variables being used for making explicit a permutation linking the xi’s." It does not mention NCL. Can you name any independent papers which do? —Ruud 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - While Zhou's work has been published in well-know computer science journals, including the Journal of Logic Programming, citations of his work are minimal. I don't think this justifies having three separate articles on his work. I could imaging it might be briefly mentioned in an overview article on constraint logic programming, but I don't think this is notable enough for an independent article. —Ruud 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this should be deleted. The 2000 paper introducing this language has only 16 citations in GS [15], and a couple of those are self-citations. Less than Impromptu (programming environment), which has 27 and is only marginally WP notable in my opinion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be kept The article is improved by adding more reliable and independent sources. 1) Dr Zhou had quitted academy and had worked in industry since 1999 before his NCL paper was published. 2) (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997), describing a pre-prototype of NCL and scheduling, is only a tiny part of (Zhou 2000). 3) "Ridiculously", (Zhou 1996; Zhou 1997) receives much more attention (16+29 = 45 citations in GS). It is even cited by Prolog's inventor Alain Colmerauer's paper. See comments above. 4) Recent NCL (Zhou 2009) is far more advanced than (Zhou 2000). 5) A book in English has already be finished. And it certainly will help develop the article. 6) Hope this answers your comments. SophiePaul (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - The coverage you keep repeating is all WP:PRIMARY written by Zhou or his collaborators/coauthors. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is not Zhuo's biography. It's not clear at all what the 1996 and 1997 papers by Zhou on the job-shop problem have to do with this language. See what Ruud Koot wrote about this article being poorly written. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the much more recent ESSENCE language (published at IJCAI 2007 [16]) already has 15 citations on CiteseerX. So NCL with a comparable number over a three times longer interval does not appear that notable in comparison. Another language from the same domain, but slightly older, ECLiPSe has 79 citations [17]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SophiePaul has added enough arguments. I think it's notable. But please improve. Petterclp (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Petterclp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is notable enough. But improvement might be needed. Logicfan (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Logicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another argument for the lack of notability of NCL/POEM/MSP is that there's no mention of any of J. Zhou's work in the comprehensive Handbook of constraint programming (2006). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: That is normal. 1) First I declare to be a user of POEM/NCL. Personally I think, CP is a very vast research domain, so vast that sometimes it is difficult to say what it is exactly. 2) People always tend to think that a programming language should be the result of a big lab. We know that around 1997 J. Zhou was no more than a PhD and he quitted academy in 1999. Nobody was sure what is the future of NCL. At that time, how could that NCL prototype receive enough attention from the academic world? But today, after more than 12 years of industrialization, NCL becomes a much more complete programming language for modeling and solving industrial problems. Everyone on earth knows that industrialization is the most important for a research result. Petterclp (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Petterclp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately WP:CORP applies to "industrialization", that is commercial products, and this article is not meeting it. The handbook in question does mention the commercial ILOG products for instance, which also originated in academia, so I don't think they are excluding such products by default. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a user of ILOG (nice products). But from your texts I do not conclude that NCL is not notable. I feel that NCL is different. Petterclp (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I use NCL/POEM. I think it does not matter at all if a book on CP did not mention NCL. As far as I understand, NCL stemed from CP. But today's NCL is not exactly within CP, because these articles tell:

A very important technique of NCL is its intelligent parser for a context-sensitive grammar. NCL recognizes problem descriptions in "conventional mathematical logic" (coded in TeX).
Another point is NCL's algorithmic framework: Mixed Set Programming. At an abstract reasoning level, MSP allows users to formulate problems with a simplified form of first-order logic: quantifiers, Boolean logic, logical functions/predicates, numerical reasoning, set theoretic reasoning, date/time reasoning, etc.

I believe there does not exist another programming language like NCL. Courage, SophiePaul. Logicfan (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the recent appearance of some ((spa)) tags, I think it's worth recalling this text from WP:SPA: "However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." In particular, the original nomination already mentioned that the creator of the page is an SPA; adding a tag to SophiePaul's name at this late stage of the discussion seems redundant. I hope that comments will be evaluated according to their merit. Jowa fan (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We started with one SPA, now we have three. I also would like this decided on the merits, but that doesn't happen by WP:CANVASSing. Msnicki (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please: Last night I editted some texts in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POEM (software) as a response to FuFoFuEd's challenging comment "no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here". If any problem, don't you think that it was FuFoFuEd who was misleading? I do hope that the debate is kind and serious and there is no pitfall. SophiePaul (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(The comment of FuFoFuEd referred to above is on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POEM (software). Jowa fan (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Of course, the article needs to be improved. Dr Zhou has published a book and the article can be certainly further developed. My arguments:
- "A bit more or few citations in GS" does not necessarily mean more or less notability.
- Logically speaking, that something is notable with 30 citations does not imply that another with 20 citations is not notable.
- Reading through the "Related works", I see that Alain Colmerauer, Maarten H. van Emden, Nicolas Beldiceanu, Jaulin el. cited Zhou's work, which is important. I believe that (Martín et al. 2009) and (Flener and Pearson 2004) are reliable and indepedent sources citing NCL; (Li 2009) is a book on an experimental system based on POEM/NCL, another independent and reliable source about POEM/NCL.
- After reading some of Zhou's papers, I believe NCL is very different from other systems mentioned by FuFoFuEd.
- Success in industry is very important for a language such as NCL.
- The conclusion is that NCL is notable. Ortech123 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Ortech123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerd Leonhard[edit]

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

I am not entirely convinced by the subject's notability. He does not seem to be the author of any notable books, or to be that notable as a musician and although he does seem to secure a living as a lecturer, I am not 100% sure that his fame is worthy of an encyclopedic article. IMHO, the question of this article deletion deserves to be asked, although I do not have a definite opinion. The article looks a lot like self-promotion (see its talk page) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following the delation debate on the French-speaking Wikipedia : self-promotion of an unknown musician, creator of a music catalog and writer of a book, The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution, not really a bestseller (ranked 157,610 at Amazon) and not cited. I add that Gerd Leonhard is not cited either. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Convinced by my own searches. Same opinion as Qworty. Insufficient notability. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:54, 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 keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model po-russki[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. Reason on talk page is:

The importance isn't shown. The importance isn't present, article is useless and doesn't bear any value and semantic loading! I suggest to remove!

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

complety unreasonbale deletion request. All tv shows have their own article, importance because of public interest. REMAIN!

Shameless (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unsurprisingly, the show has received a lot of coverage. Here's a sample [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] - frankie (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it easily meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Front Range Urban Corridor[edit]

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

This entire page is original research. The only references are raw census data and the definition of statistical areas. There is no references to the use of the term. No references to indicate the notability of the term (i.e. whether it is widely used or recognized). --Trödel 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google gives about 227,000 references to the term "Front Range Urban Corridor". This article was created on November 29, 2006, and is rated B-class, Mid-importance by both WikiProject Colorado and WikiProject Wyoming. This can hardly be considered original research. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination fails WP:BEFORE, as it takes very little effort to find uses of the term. Just by clicking the links next to "find sources" above, I quickly found that the term is in widespread use by both local and national news organizations, is used in numerous scholarly articles, including several published by the USGS, and appears in many books on geology. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the article rates the B class rating it has (maybe a start class though). --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FitzRoy Media[edit]

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

Do we think this organization meets WP:ORG? It does apparently license a notable comic strip, but I didn't have much luck finding sources, and the cited one, I'm not convinced is not a press release. What does the community think? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, and I have found no reliable source mentions of this organization. The comic strips on the other hand are definitely notable - but that is a separate issue. Also, for the closing admin's reference, please refer to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nathaniel43284 regarding the removal of the speedy deletes on the original article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another publicity business advertising on Wikipedia: a brand management company that licenses children's entertainment properties for media platforms including mobile, Internet and interactive broadcast TV. -25 notability points for "brand management", -25 again for "media platforms". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:27, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and no one advocating for deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wm. Michael Lynn[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable...professor at a school with a mere 900 students...and he is an expert in...tipping?! CTJF83 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination...I didn't look closely enough and the link wasn't clear enough that it is part of Cornell CTJF83 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, an expert in tipping. His work has been extremely popular, there are 229 Google News Archive hits for +"Michael Lynn" +cornell +tipping. Biographical articles have appeared in The Cornell Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, that I have found. He meets WP:PROF #1 and #8. jorgenev 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as what Jorgenev wrote, he holds a named chair at an Ivy League university (and Cornell is not "a school with a mere 900 students"; that's merely his administrative unit within the larger university), passing WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apart from the named chair position at Cornell, mentioned by David Eppstein, Lynn is frequently quoted in conventional news-media as an academic expert on hospitality issues. A filtered googlenews search[23], gives 359 hits; a few of them may be false positives, but the majority appear to be legit. So, arguably, also passes WP:PROF#C7. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what's wrong with being an expert in tipping? expert standing, named chair at Cornell, Google news. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brahman-Atman Yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify the contents of the article have failed. Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined a G4 Speedy deletion nomination, as this does not meet the criteria (it is not substantially the same as the article deleted in 2005). However, I can find no evidence at independent, reliable sources which would indicate that this type of yoga exists - Brahman and Atman are 2 doctines of the Vedanta, but no sources refer to a form of yoga embracing both the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe which is Brahman and the one's true self of Atman. As such, I see no evidence to show that it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unreferenced. Can be recreated iff somebody provides proper references establishing WP:ORG. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo arcade games[edit]

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

Completely unneccessary. There's already a page called List of products published by Nintendo. Logan The Master (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is already at List of products published by Nintendo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the parent article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I already said this, but the page is freaking pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan The Master (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 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 keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of newsreaders and journalists in France[edit]

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

Delete. A list that adds nothing that a category already does and it contains lots of red links. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize Absolutely has no contextual informationCurb Chain (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that fr:Paul Amar, fr:Jean-Claude Bourret, fr:Marie-Laure Augry, fr:Gérard Carreyrou, fr:Daniel Cazal, fr:Hervé Claude, fr:Michèle Cotta, fr:Georges de Caunes, fr:Ladislas de Hoyos, fr:Michel Denisot, fr:Philippe Gildas, fr:Alain Gillot-Pétré, fr:Gérard Holtz, fr:Bruno Masure, fr:Etienne Mougeotte, fr:Jean-Claude Narcy, fr:Thierry Roland, fr:Claude Sérillon (some of the most important French News anchors ever) are red links here does not mean anything: the red links should be wikified instead of deleting the entire article. It's also an argument against categorizing, since categories do not show red links. Comte0 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Comte0; that "to do list" function is a valuable one in aiding article creation. See also WP:CLN. The list can also be expanded to have annotations as in List of American print journalists, and data such as birth date to provide a method of sorting other than alphabetical. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep per Comte0, and please note that Alan Liefting's argument and Curb Chain's argument are both explicitly contradicted by the relevant guideline, which is WP:CLN. Please see WP:AOAL point #8 in particular. It's not hard to translate the eighteen articles from fr.wiki that Comte0 points out, and I'll do one or two of them today.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Marie-Laure Augry—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is contrary to WP:CLN and our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories serve different purposes. Red links are an indication of wikipedia's failures, not a reason to delete. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:10, 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. The only explicit "keep" vote is just an assertion of notability. The comments by Rudyryan has some more merit to it (except the allegation that the nomination is "malicious"). The question is whether the article passes the WP:CLUB guideline. Rudyryan makes a reasonable case that the first criterion is met (national scale), but my review of the references given in the article revealed that none of them give independent or secondary coverage of the fraternity. Some of them, such as [24] make no mention of the fraternity at all. Thus, the second criterion, which is in most cases important to ensure WP:V and WP:NPOV as well as notability, does not seem to be met. So, I am closing this as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Chi Omega, Multicultural Fraternity, Inc.[edit]

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

This has already been deleted, multiple times, in fact I requested it be speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted material myself, the article was deleted as such then, and we're back here now. I'm asking that this time it, and all the other names that this has been created as (an admin would have to look at the creator's deleted contribs to find them) be salted. This is spam, the organization isn't notable, and this is really, really getting tiring. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails the general notability guideline. It's not obviously eligible for speedy deletion under A7 or G7. --Anthem 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [25]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a local fraternity at the University of California, Santa Barbara and is obviously not "spam" and the organization is notable it has been established since 1993 and is the first multicultural fraternity on the campus of UCSB obviously a huge improvement for the campus. This page should not be salted. "Sven Manguard" is being malicious when trying to delete the article, it may need improvements, but it doesn't need to be deleted. The reason it was deleted before was because of copyright infringements and it is back up because the proper copyrights were given and can be seen on the organizations website. It is largely notable just like any other multicultural greek organization such as Nu Alpha Kappa, Chi Delta Theta, etc., all of which have articles on wikipedia so they are obviously notable enough to be on wikipedia.Rudyryan (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think salting and deleting this is a little extreme, it should be improved obviously it needs a little editing to provide a neutral stand point. I just dont see how this page isn't notable and or how it's spam. It isn't eligible for speedy deletion because theres nothing that makes this page a violation of wikipedia policy other than the need for editing to become nuetral and unbiased. and the content is verifiable. It should definitely not be deleted but be edited. GodzillaKilla (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but it looks like it doesn't pass our notability requirements for such organizations. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But thats where you are wrong. The organization does pass these requirements: the scope of the organization is national and the fraternity is currently expanding and more chapters will be around in the near future; also the information about the organization can be found all ove the internet. If you check the references you'll see that you can find information concerning this organization on UCSB sites and various other sites. Dont assume that they organization doesnt fulfill the requirements for such organizations because of you do just the tiniest of a fraction of research or just looking through the entirety of this page you'll see theres no reason why this page should be deleted. Rudyryan (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This definitely passes the notability requirements for non-commercial organizations GodzillaKilla (talk) 00:27, 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Provincial Men's U16 Soccer Team (1976)[edit]

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

1976 Team fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt that the Ontario Provincial Men's U16 Soccer Team in general (are U16s really "men"....?) would merit an article, one specific year's team definitely doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated above, the team in general is not notable, meaning this one incarnation of the team is not either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Team is not significant. Not a national team, nor has done anything special. Seems to be just a dedication page, User may have played for the team at some point. Nath1991 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan-Manuel Valverde[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets no wikipedia tennis guideline for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Two Days in April[edit]

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

This film does not appear to be notable, despite the fact that the director and his other films are. I have been able to identify only the most cursory, passing mention of this film—nothing remotely rising to the standards of WP:N or NF. ^Bongo_matic 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — [[User:Cri--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)sco 1492|Crisco 1492]] (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this article, it provides quite a bit of background on the film, this article should be expanded not deleted. If you don't think there is enough material, add more rather than just nominate for deletion.: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/the_bonus/12/20/documentary/index.html Neil Kelty (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that coverage is sparse, at least when doing a search engine test. Here is one article available online. Here is another that isn't. It may help to ask someone to do a search in subscription-only news databases to see if additional coverage exists. In addition, film and sports periodicals will not always put their articles online, so there may be something more. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. ^Bongo_matic 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Keep and continue expansion and sourcing. While I respect that the nominator found only "the most cursory, passing mention of this film", my own searches found the film is indeed covered and in independent secondary sources, some in great detail, and meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NF toward presumption of notability. There is the above-mentioned in-depth article found in Sports Illustrated which is far from a "cursory" or "passing mention". I also found a decent article about the film in MovieMaker Magazine which is more that a "cursory" or "passing mention". And there is also Film.org And while yes, it is also covered in non-RS sites such as The Movie Freaks and Young Hollywood such information can lead to more sources, just as can the information included in the Netfilx press release on Reuters (yes.. non-rs or press releasees are not an RS, but the information therein can lead to verifiable sources). As Erik writes above, there is more behind pay walls. My own sense is that we have enough to presume notability, retain the article, and continue work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WeRaise.co.uk[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources attesting to this search engine's notability. Google search for "weraise" charity search engine brings up press releases and freelancer sites, but no significant coverage elsewhere. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched on Yahoo! and found nothing as well, when a newspaper or TV station mentions this charity then it can come back. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability whatsoever. Keb25 (talk) 13:19, 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 Mika Kawamura. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awasete Ippon[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been transwikied to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Awasete_Ippon, but not all of the history has been preserved there. What should be done? --Malkinann (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Google search turns up nothing but copyright infringing scanlations. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 16:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mika Kawamura, both in case the series somehow becomes notable, and as a plausible search term. --Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mika Kawamura, possible search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terranora interconnector[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. this is just a transmission line. it gets some limited coverage in govt websites which lists it as a transmission line. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a high voltage direct current electricity transmission line in Australia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'this is just a transmission line' is not a valid reason for deletion if notability criteria is met. There are enough links to establish notability, including search results by Google News if to use the interconnector's former name Directlink. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taoist Medicine[edit]

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

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately I never know how to do these fucking things, so here goes. No citations. Unencyclopedic writing. No links. Nothing to show that it's notable. It's advertising. If anything give it one sentence in the other pseudoscience article, Traditional chinese medicine. Otherwise, delete this travesty. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author's response

You may be an expert on writing on wiki, but please be polite when express your opinion.

I created this page. This is the first time I created an article on wiki. I went through wiki tutorial but found myself clumsy when I actually did it. In the beginning, I messed up the references and citation part, now I fixed them. I added some external website information as well. This is definitely notable subject. Taoist medicine and Chinese traditional medicine are two different things! This article explains the differences.

Please let me know what can be improved and I will work on it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjnullww (talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I see, the nominator is reverting all attempts by the author to fix this article. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, this article has been extensively reverted --User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The only "fix" that matters is the provision of wp:RS references to establish notability. So far the only source suggested is in Chinese. While that complicates matters it does not on its own disqualify the source. OCLC 436169776 shows a copy in the NLM, another at the University of Michigan, Anne Arbor, and no others in the thousands of included libraries. It also shows no other publications by that author, Xiong, Chunjin, 1948- 熊春锦. We'd need some confirmation of that source's reliability. Other books that address the general area are at this list. One of them might suffice to rescue the article, but that certainly has not been established. In the meanwhile, it does not belong in articlespace. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and suggest the author get sources for it - the topic, moreover, decidedly fits into "traditional Chinese medicine" where any material really would be a better choice. Meanwhile, AfD is a remarkably bad place to make acusations against anyone on this sort of issue. Collect (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion that Taoist medicine is not notable is absurd - see sources such as Medicine in China: a history of ideas, for example. That the article is new and imperfect is not a reason to delete because it is our explicit policy to tolerate such weak starts and to nuture them rather than to delete them. Warden (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Colonel, but that source doesn't talk about "Taoist Medicine", it talks about "Chinese medicine", and even WP:IMPERFECT explicitly acknowledges that "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research". LeadSongDog come howl! 05:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. We are therefore not concerned here with the phrase Taoist Medicine in an exact and literal way. Such literalism would be silly when the topic is mostly translated from Chinese and even Taoism itself may be translated in different ways, e.g. Daoism. The source cited above clearly supports this topic by its detailed account of the way in which Taoist thought and concepts informed and influenced medicine: its theory of disease (demons), its therapeutic approach (alchemy), and so on. In any case, that is just one example. See also On the Early Legacy and Theories of Taoist Medicine, Textual Research on Taoist Medicine of Dunhuang Caves, Study on development history of Taoist medicine in Wudang. Warden (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would suggest you drop the comparison between TM and TCM and add extensively to the methods used in TM medical practise. Also make sure you reference all material to second source references. The article is of notability. The article is not spam. It is however a stub. I'd suggest you look up stub which means it is very short primarily and lacks content. My apologize for the rough treatment. Nemaste --User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Traditional chinese medicine. I think this topic certainly meets WP:N - see the google scholar results page for a start: [26], but the current content is really not worth keeping. Taoist medicine and traditional chinese medicine are very closely associated, and it doesn't necessarily need an independent article. Anthem 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [27]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to TCM. I understand that they are not the same, but without expansion and references, it is better served to be a redirect to a new subsection on TCM where the differences can be mentioned. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:40, 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. Only keep support is from confirmed sock puppets.Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goran D. Kleut[edit]

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

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

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

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

Recently created stub article about a subject who fails WP:NACTOR. The only references in the article are to his empty profile page at SBS and the homepage for Sea Patrol (TV series). The actor's role in Sea Patrol was minimal (one episode) and the page does not mention him. The external link to IMDB is invalid, however he seems to have a page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2377520. The article creator has recently aded his name to the infobox of Gabriel (film),[28] but the movie poster doesn't mention him,[29] so his significance in the film is questionable. He is listed in The Tunnel (2011 film), another low budget (A$135k) film, and while "two" is technically "multiple", the actor's roles to date don't seem to meet the spirit of WP:NACTOR AussieLegend (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with chookas for future notability. The SBS ref confirms he was in those two films (and their notability may also be in question}. Not even a passing mention in any of the Sydney newspapers: see, for example a search in the SMH. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actor is clearly a working actor in australia and not adding him to wiki seems a shame as the industry is so small. The tunnel 2011 is creating history with its clever way of funding its self. Check it out at @ WWW.thetunnelmovie.net/ Turbine01 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)turbines01 — Turbine01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep we should showcase more up and comming australian actors on wiki. This actor is working hard in an industry with little work here in australia. His agent site <rmk.com.au/goran_d_kleut/> shows he has played mad MLADENICH in a tv series for foxtel's Crime & Investigations network, Considering the success with the underbelly shows Smurfhouse89 (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC) smurfhouse89 — Smurfhouse89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete. Being in something notable doesn't automatically make notable and I can't find ref to support that the shows/series notability is because of or strongly influenced by his participation. Some day perhaps, but "a fish in a small pond" doesn't make the fish or the pond notable, and WP is not a promotional/talent showcase. DMacks (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actor's role in the tunnel is deliberately not on the poster as he is the villain. If you get the DVD there are multiple comments from his fellow actors regarding his input to it. — Squeeker13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I clicked on his IMDB profile and his body of work seems to have a certain versatility to it. His character in "Gabriel", Moloch seems a breakout villain and the first fight scene is very good for a lower budget film. In fact his fight scene in the Sea Patrol episode is also quite special and incorporated some wrestling transitions from hold to hold I haven't seen before in either real wrestling or the entertainment wrestling available — Nance1309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Comment There seems to be an unusually high number of keep votes from newly registered accounts whose first and only edits have been at this AfD. Two of the first three signed their votes in a similar manner. All of the first three were registered in a 21 minute period last night. I've tagged them with ((SPA)) and added ((Not a ballot)) to the page because there seems to be some meat- or even sock-puppetry going on. None of those who have voted so far have addressed policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've already cast my vote but as I'm admittedly new at this I don't believe I addressed the policy for notability correctly. My bad. As this is a discussion and not a majority rule I would point to his stage work but more with a question than an assertion. I recognise a number of those plays and playwrights as well as one or two of the directors. How would one ascertain whether these inclusions are sufficient for notability? --nance1309 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:NACTOR is our guide for assessing notability in this case and the subject clearly fails to meet the requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping with the WP:NACTOR the movie The Tunnel was just reviewed in the sunday telegraph sunday 12th june 2011. Goran is the Villian in this movie, that is a significant role. He was also Moloch who is one of the fallen angels in Gabriel. Also was Lampay Fay in Star wars episode III revenge of the sith who's character has its own action figure. PLus the various well known stage productions he has been in. I think you you find that fits with the "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".Terribear69 (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)terribear69[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. Even if the movies in which he's appeared are notable, this doesn't mean that he is. He needs to be notable in his own right and it doesn't appear that he is. Similarly, while Lampay Fay might be notable, this doesn't make the actor notable. In fact, Kleut was so non-notable he wasn't even credited in the movie. NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and that really isn't the case with this person. He's had a couple of roles in productions of questionable notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sock puppet investigation opened. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for closing admin CheckUser has confirmed that Turbine01, Smurfhouse89, Squeeker13, Nance1309 and Terribear69 are all the same editor.[30] --AussieLegend (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Foulkes[edit]

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

its about the girl in the tmobile commercials. except for appearing in a few other commercials im not sure if shes notable enough. Heyitsme22 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A magazine cover model and ubiquitous commercial star. There's some sourcing showing in the article. 77,000 page views showing in the last month. Notable enough. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture and she needs to be here as part of the latter mission, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in complete agreement with Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC) on this. Very well stated. Evalpor (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = She is the ad girl of one of the top four cell carriers in the US, I think that makes her notable enough. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although good RS are somewhat scarce, there are many blog entries. One of the WP:NMODEL criteria is Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The writer at [[31]] notes Over the past six months, the woman who I've gotten the most e-mails about (who has yet to appear in Hot Clicks) is Carly Foulkes. Who is Carly Foulkes, you ask? Gerardw (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's AN L.A. TIMES INTERNET PIECE on Foulkes as the T-mobile girl. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's CBS INTERACTIVE BUSINESS NETWORK on the Carly Foulkes campaign (mentioning her by name and at length) as indicative of T-Mobile's advertising savvy in light of a recent merger with AT&T. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who is Carly Foulkes? A model who had a mobile ad I don't think that is very deserving of a wiki pageTerribear69 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)terribear69[reply]
Keep The scope of her exposure, recognition, and following confers sufficient notability. In saying so, I am mindful of the principle that notability is not temporary. -SM 05:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Baillie[edit]

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

Has been best as barely making a dozen appearances for club in Scottish third tier level. Ifore2010 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - East Fife are a professional team whether the league is professional or not. LGF1992UK (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient for notability - WP:NFOOTBALL confirms that a player must play in a fully-professional league if they don't meet the GNG. Giant Snowman 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. He has not played in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning he fail both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He never played for a professional league team which is the reason why this person doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The team he plays for, which is East Fife, is only in the Scottish second division, and according to this, East Fife is not a professional league team. Minima © (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mālama Hawai`i[edit]

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

The organization does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG, and a Google search provided me with no hits other than self-published sources. A News Google search provided me with no results. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am usually an inclusionist, but it looks like this is just cut-n-paste from a web site. The one independent source cited does not mention this organization, but the "Malama Learning Center" which just shares a word. Mālama is a common Hawaiian word, used often nowdays for various preservation projects. Perhaps Pauline Sato was involved in both, so perhaps an article could be developed on her, with a sentence on this web site. She seems involved in a bunch of similar groups, involved in the PVS, and has been covered for Nature Conservancy projects. Also should mention the learning center in the Kapolei High School article. This article has other typos, such as not using ʻokina properly, and the amusing mis-spelling of Honolulu Star-Bulletin. W Nowicki (talk) 17:08, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STALKER The Road to Pripyat[edit]

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

Non notable Half Life 2 Mod. Google revealed no RS's. Only source is a link to the mod page N^oformation ^Talk 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete - No reliable sources that cover the mod. Also the mod "just restarted" so there isn't even anything to show for potential sources to see. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not locate adequate sourcing. Marasmusine (talk) 09:47, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Splott Division[edit]

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

No real notability, the creator of the page appears to be the actual maker of the piece and to be using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Barely any sources cited, etc. Overall, mis-use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes Romuska 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 26 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) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 6 gnews hits says it all. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 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) 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almerões[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet the applicable notability guideline. They are unsigned, and their coverage appears to consist primarily of interviews in blogs. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't agree that the condition of a band being unsigned should count on those cases, the market is full of independent bands, that are unsigned, however are reference of a country culture and became even more important and meaningful than some signed bands. At least this is the current scenario in Brazil. In what regards their coverage, in the website Portal Mogi Guaçu (which is not a blog, is a reliable communication vehicle with over 1 million views/month) article of the band, the article also includes an interview, but we have to consider that before the interview, the publisher Tarso Zagato write a press release of the band and also express a brief opinion. In addition I have updated the Almerões Wikipedia article with more detailed information of the band. Hope it helps us to solve this discussion. Sincerelly Nothingtrust (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article contained some grammar errors, I corrected it. Hope it helps. 32.104.18.240 (talk) 14:39, 26 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) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked this article with 3 others related articles 32.104.18.240 (talk) 17:15, 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) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched English and Portuguese sources. Only hits are either mp3 downloads, social media, or non-notable reviews. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this deletion, however I've got no more arguments to support this page (even given the fact I do believe this is compliant with Wikipedia rules/guidelines). I am working hard and researching to see if I can find more "notable/reliable" sources and I will re-submit this article once I have it in hands. I would like to say Thanks for all the discussion and comprehension 32.104.18.240 (talk) 19:14, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent M. Buckley[edit]

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

This person appears to have received some local professional awards, but I have not found adequate coverage in secondary sources to meet the notability guideline for biographies. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He currently serves on or has served on committees and boards of 17 prominent organizations. He and his law firm have won several major awards given out by prominent third parties in the legal community both locally and nationally. There are references in the entry that proves this. He also has been involved in high profile cases with prominent clients, such as Tom Ganley. He has his own band which has performed at public events. I have added a couple more sources to help substantiate this and will search for more. Clevelandwriter13 —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 25 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) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Henderson (computer scientist)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. the only coverage I could find was the chef by the same name. nothing for his claim to fame about inventing mercury programming language [32]. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 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) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one bit of secondary coverage is relatively discoverable [33], a paper with Henderson as the primary author is widely cited, [34] (340 cites, for what it's worth). There're a number of other peer reviewed articles published by him, not entirely convinced that GScholar results alone would get him to WP:SCHOLAR, but with the ARN link I think he's notable enough for a bit of an article. . --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable enough for the Professor test, he is well-cited in a field not well known to the layperson. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San_Francisco_Giants#Radio_and_television. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kruk and Kuip[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologisms are not encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO, "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Information in this article is more relevant and notable to existing articles about the individuals Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper, List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters, 2010 San Francisco Giants season, and the San Francisco Giants. It is not notable enough as a stand-alone article unless it passes WP:GNG and coverage is found that is significant and not WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple, independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based primarily on this reference. I don't believe that WP:NEO applies, because this article is not about the neologism itself, but about the two sportscasters, who are notable. A second choice would be to redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television. Ma^t_chups 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are notable, which is why they have individual articles. This adds nothing, other than the neologism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - The article is unsourced, and I don't know if it is sourceable or not. To the extent the information is sourceable, it should probably just be merged to List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters, and any other relevant information from Matchups' source could be added as well. Then this can be turned into a redirect to the broadcaster list. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television--Yankees10 02:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television. Beyond the obvious WP:NEO argument, there is also nothing in this article that explains why this specific pairing is itself notable beyond its being composed of two already-notable personages, other than having a cutesy name attached to it. The target I chose is preferable to List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters since it already has information on the topic, and is more likely to be kept current. It will eventually have to redirect to the latter, of course. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, per Dewelar. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and then redirect to Emacs. Consensus to delete but with no objection to redirect the article title. So Why 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlust (software)[edit]

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage. I'm not counting the emacs wiki and blog as independent. I found a one-line mention in a book [35] with a screen shot, which doesn't seem to justify a separate Wikipedia article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various modes of emacs for email (rmail, vm, wanderlust) should be discussed at the article on emacs. Independent notability of these is questionable. Rmail gets most coverage, because most emacs books are rather old. [36] [37]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turns up hundreds of articles and mentions about it just in English; in addition, it has a great deal of popularity among Japanese-speaking users. The article could certainly use a bit of expansion, but not deletion. The emacs wiki has no relation to Wanderlust (which does not ship with Emacs); it just provides information about it. The blog and the hundreds of other articles about Wanderlust certainly count as independent. Keep. --Josh Triplett (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the emacs wiki is a directory of all the emacs modes. It is simply part of the emacs documentation. If we accept that wiki as a source of notability, we'd have to create a Wikipedia article for every emacs mode, for instance AnyIniMode. See WP:EVERYTHING. Can you point out something that is considered independent as well as reliable according to the Wikipedia rules? Blogs are excluded unless they have been written by a previously published expert; see WP:SPS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to suggest that the emacs wiki counted as notable, just independent. Also, I don't intend to suggest that any random Emacs mode necessarily needs a Wikipedia article; in this case, the mode in question effectively counts as an application (a mail reader) that happens to run inside Emacs, which seems distinct from the case of a mode for editing a particular type of file. As for the type of sources, I doubt you'll find Wanderlust written about in a printed book (as with most modern software, for which the web works as a far better substitute), and certainly not if you expect more than just a mention. I can trivially find a large number of pages written about Wanderlust (just by searching for "wanderlust mail", without the quotes) that have nothing to do with the author; I don't plan to go through all of those to find one that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. (I'd argue that "preponderance of the evidence" ought to apply here, personally.) If that makes Wanderlust non-notable, feel free to go ahead and merge it into Emacs. --Josh Triplett (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the Notability policy of WP, but this article is certainly rather sparse. I'd like to see the article expanded, but if it is to be deleted, could it possibly be replaced with a redirect to the relevant section of the Emacs page, and the (meagre) contents moved there? Ketil (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the emacs article arleady says just about the same thing as this one, except for the infobox. I don't think it's practical to add infoboxes for all the emacs mode versions there, but a table might work. As for the sources noted by Josh above, they are similar in nature to those for SFML, which was deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (2nd nomination). FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some suggestions to merge a few of these (which lack independent sourcing) with the artist seem to be reasonable, but I am leaving that matter up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (Hugh Cornwell album)[edit]

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

fails WP:ALBUMS and WP:GNG. no evidence of charting or significant non trivial coverage [38]. also nominating by same artist:

Wolf (Hugh Cornwell album), no real coverage [39]
Solo_(Hugh_Cornwell_album), [40]

those wanting to keep must demonstrate meeting WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, not simply saying WP:ITSUSEFUL to keep discographies. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a Hugh Cornwell discography article - detail on Cornwell's releases belongs in this encyclopedia even if we can't find sources to justify individual articles via Google, and the verifiable details such as tracklistings, labels can be included in the discography.--Michig (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no point in creating a discography article for his albums and just tracklistings. Grouping a whole lot of non notable albums into one article does not add up to one notable discography article. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable artist and information on his releases is clearly encyclopedic. What exactly is a 'notable discography article'? - it's subjects that are notable, not articles, and Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable. Cornwell is of sufficient stature in British music that all of his albums will have received reviews from the music press - unfortunately most of these are not available online. This does not make the albums 'non-notable', it simply means that we don't have sources readily available on which to base articles. That's why in cases such as this, articles may not be justified but verifiable encyclopedic information about the albums should be included either in the artist article or in a separate discography article.--Michig (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable", no. body of work must meet WP:NALBUMS. all his own article needs to list is albums. we don't need to create a directory of track listings as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? NALBUMS is purely for albums. Notable artists' bodies of work are clearly of encyclopedic interest. Details of albums have nothing to do with NOTDIR.--Michig (talk) 06:19, 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) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, well-known artist, sourcing issues shouldn't be fixed by deletion. Also suspicious that these have all been lumped together - the headline item is a self-released live album, whereas Wolf is a major release on Virgin featuring several famous musicians. Not the same thing. Bienfuxia (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Mayday gets a four-star review at AllMusic; Wolf almost certainly had extensive coverage in the UK music press at the time (1988, when he was still in The Stranglers) that hasn't made it online; even if Solo isn't notable in its own right, Cornwell certainly is, and it should be kept for the same reasons that are outlined elsewhere. (In short, it comes down to the recommendation in WP:OSE: "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.") BlueThird (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also an AfD for Wired. BlueThird (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added significant extra information for Wolf, including references to Trouser Press (for the album) and the Los Angeles Times (for the lead single and accompanying video). BlueThird (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on Wolf is now suitably referenced using third party sources. The album was released in both the UK and the US, where a single from the album charted in the US alternative rock charts. The album is clearly notable from a notable artist. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wolf certainly has enough sources. Mayday appears to as well given the Allmusic article and the independent article already referenced in the article. Not sure about Solo, although if no independent sources exist I would follow WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port Blue - The Airship (Album)[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this album in any reliable third party sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My understanding is that staff reviews on sputnikmusic are considered reliable, so the EL from the article seems to be an acceptable source. However, I'm not finding any more significant coverage that would get this album to pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. If that holds up, then I'd just add any pertinent info on the album to Adam Young's article. Gongshow ^Talk 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm. I didn't actually realize that sputnikmusic represents a reliable source. That makes this a bit more borderline than I had thought. Regardless, I certainly agree with incorporating any verifiable information from this article into the Adam Young article if this ends in deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, there's a distinction made (at least at WikiProject Albums) between sputnik's staff and non-staff reviews, but either way I'd like to see more coverage than that one source in order to keep. Gongshow ^Talk 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What little content exists, including the infobox, should be folded into the Adam Young article unless better sourcing can be found. (This case defines the borderline.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also covered by AllMusic Guide [41] Mordac (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radical (mixtape)[edit]

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

Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage found, and no listings or reviews on either Billboard or AMG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review is added L Trey (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A paragraph in Pitchfork is not enough. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gepida[edit]

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

A "Self-declined WP:A7". There is no doubt that this company WP:EXISTS, but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of this bicycle manufacturer. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fleshed the article out a little and added a 3rd-party ref. PamD (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in all those bike magazines. They have scans on their web site of all the articles. Clever. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be enough coverage at http://www.gepida.hu/eng-hun/company-intruduction/media/eng_pr/ to meet WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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