< 10 September	12 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Party of Ontario#History. v/r - T P 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Green Party of Ontario[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a necessary article. It is the only provincial party in Canada to have its own history article, and most of its information is the same as the Green Party of Ontario article. Aaaccc (talk), 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Green Party of Ontario#History. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then create a redirect – to Green Party of Ontario. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth keeping. Reads like an essay. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively long, detailed, and promotional article about something that should be covered in a single section at Green Party of Ontario. No redirect is needed; someone wanting to know about the history of this party is going to go to the party's article, not search under "history of..." --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research[edit]

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

Deprodded R.Haworth's prod, and sending it here for discussion. I think this might be one of the exceptions to the general rule that institutes such as these are not notable--it does seem to be one of the major institute in its field at the world level. Needs citations on impact of its publications. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "It is the premier center for survey research methodology in the world. There are no close seconds."[2] The article does need a lot of work, but that's no reason to delete it. --Avenue (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough, esp. per the reference given by Avenue. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Avenue's quote strongly indicates notability, but take a look at the whole LA Times article: that one citation alone would provide enough independent material for a verifiable page. The second page may be more useful than the first. DeliciousBits (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom was correct to deprod. References are needed, but notability does not seem to be an issue here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities appointed to the Order of the British Empire[edit]

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

Definition of "celebrity" is entirely arbitrary (list contains entertainers, but also politicians, doctors, etc.; if we take "celebrity" to mean "notable person," the list is meaningless because, per WP:ANYBIO, being appointed confers automatic notability). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with the nominator that "celebrity" isn't a very good criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would take issue with the statement that "being appointed confers automatic notability". To GBE, DBE or KBE certainly (since they confer knighthoods or damehoods, which certainly qualify as "a well-known and significant award or honor"), to CBE probably, to OBE or MBE only maybe, depending on why the appointment was made. Most MBEs are not automatically notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As criteria for celebrity is indeed arbitrary, this list becomes WP:OR/WP:SYN (subjective debatable criteria is WP:OR, as I can choose different criteria and come to the different list with the very same name). Also can delete per WP:SALAT. Ipsign (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Repurpose: List of entertainers appointed to the Order of the British Empire would take in the great majority of the entries, seems better defined, and useful. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an entire swarm of articles at that already cover this. See:

v t e British honours lists
New Year Honours	1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902† 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940† 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 † Not issued because of Birthday Honours of the new monarch (1902) and World War II (1940)
Birthday Honours	1860 1861 1862 1863§ 1864§ 1865§ 1866 1867 1868§ 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876§ 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887† 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897† 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911† 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937† 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953† 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 § Not issued † Not issued because of Jubilee Honours (1887, 1897) and Coronation Honours (1911, 1937, 1953)
Coronation Honours	1821 1831 1838 1902 1911 1937 1953 2023† † Not issued
Jubilee Honours	1887 (Golden) 1897 (Diamond) 1935 (Silver) 1977 (Silver) 2002 (Golden) 2012 (Diamond) 2022 (Platinum)† † Not issued
Demise Honours	2002 (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret) 2021 (The Duke of Edinburgh) 2023 (Queen Elizabeth II)
Dissolution Honours	1874 1885 1892 1895 1900† 1906† 1910† 1918† 1922 1923† 1924 1929 1931 1935† 1945 1950 1951† 1955† 1959 1964 1966 1970 1974 (February) 1974 (October) 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017† 2019 † Not issued
Prime Minister's Resignation Honours	1895 1905 1916 1923 1924 1945 1951 1955† 1957† 1963 1964 1970 1976 1979† 1990 1997 2007† 2010† 2016 2019 2022 (Johnson) 2022 (Truss) † Not issued
Special Honours	1923 1952 1972 1973 1974 1981 1983 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1999 2004 2006 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Additional Honours	1911 (Delhi Durbar) 1953 (Korea) 1969 (Investiture of The Prince of Wales) 1990 (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's 90th Birthday)
Honours by nation	Australia Canada Ceylon India New Zealand

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:40, 17 September 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 SNOW keep per the arguments overwhelmingly in favor of keeping, the article and its numerous sources meets the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OxiClean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept last time due to sources, but on further inspection they're press releases. Delete or merge to that big shouty guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a trade journal is not a press release. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oxiclean has been covered in Popular Science more than once, and has been noted for its infomercials, as well as being product tested in newspapers including the New York Times. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current sourcing in the article is very weak, but strong sources clearly exist. A merge to Billy Mays is possibly reasonable, but in this case it should probably be discussed on the talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per several reliable sources listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator was the same person who nominated the article the last time at AFD. Don't keep trying until you get the results you want. Also follow WP:BEFORE and do a quick Google news archive search. The New York times says "Last year, Orange Glo International, based in Greenwood Village, Colo., reported sales of $240 million... OxiClean powder is now third in sales in its category nationwide, according to Information Resources of Chicago, which tracks consumer product sales." [3] A major product with millions in sales. The Star Telegram has an article about it. [4] The most ample coverage I see is from the Denver Business Journal [5] which talks about its development, etc. Dream Focus 03:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Existing sources more than adequate to demonstrate notability. While the Denver one looks like it may be a rehashed press release, the old NYT article exists even if it's no longer online. ^Bongo_matic 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep., this is a well known product, this page could be expanded on. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous AfDs add more to the list of sources, Analysis of Oxiclean: An Interesting Comparison of Percarbonate Stain Removers is posted on a government website for educators, and states, "The study focuses on percarbonate-based stain removers since the percarbonate can be heated to produce additional sodium carbonate. An experiment that provides general chemistry students an opportunity to apply their knowledge of basic stoichiometry to solve a relevant, real-world problem is described." So, no real question here about sources or notability. Unscintillating (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Fuzetti[edit]

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

I can't find a record of this guy having ever been in the MLS, and I can't find a record of him trying to even go back to the MLS. Ronaldo8585 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above Ronaldo8585 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage. Therefore, he fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Burke (songwriter)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. References in the article are, I suppose, primary as I didn't actually see that they confirmed anything in the article, but it does appear to be the site of the owner of the small record label that that released the one album in the discography for which I could find no critical reception or attention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 21:50, 14 September 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. Duplicates existing information Alexf^(talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be tamed song[edit]

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

This article is already in use and should be merged to an existing article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need for an AFD here: just redirect to Can't Be Tamed (song). Gurt Posh (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mantis[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough media articles about this individual to meet WP:GNG. I have reduced the bulk of the self-referencing content in the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per several reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per debates on articles for a number of other prominent individuals running for election but never elected, this likewise meets WP:GNG even if it does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ahblair (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Program About Unusual Buildings & Other Roadside Stuff[edit]

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

I came across this article after clicking on What links here for Mammy's Cupboard (which I started) and Haines Shoe House (which I expanded). While it is true that the places featured in this special are notable, the documentary itself is not and I can't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its creator, Rick Sebak, is a notable filmmaker who founded a new sub-genre of documentaries. Several of his other films are also covered on the encyclopedia. Alternatively, I could agree with Merging into a hypothetical Films directed by Rick Sebak article. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. If those other films that are covered on Wikipedia aren't notable, they should be deleted also unless someone decides to merge them all. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. It's not inherited from the filmmaker, it's not inherited from the buildings. If the subject of this article is to be considered notable, the refs have to support the documentary itself being notable, not the peripherals to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNews shows multiple coverage of this program in reliable sources. [6] Mainly behind pay walls, but here's one from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [7]. Also of interest: a lengthy column in The Washington Post wherein the creator answers questions from readers about this show.[8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per reliable sources listed above by user Arxiloxos. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you see ample coverage. The Washing Post article is significant coverage, obviously, and there are others. Dream Focus 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said in my nomination that I did search for sources. So maybe you're calling me a liar. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously you didn't search hard enough. Remember, when going through Google news search, always click the "archives" option to get more results. Dream Focus 04:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - SL93 (talk · contribs) is reminded to assume good faith and not read personal attacks into others' comments. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't read a personal attack into it. Dream Focus said that I didn't follow WP:BEFORE when I did. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the notable producer - add to the list of Rick Sebak's productions. Off2riorob (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Direct as per Off2riorob. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gurlez Akhtar[edit]

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

Only reference is in Punjabi, which I cannot evaluate, even approximately, as G translate cannot deal with it. My removal of the BLP prod based on the source was contested, so moving it here. What is said might be notable enough for there to be sources, but expert help is needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the one who contested the removal of the BLPProd. The only reference in the article was added after the Prod was put up. Reference is from www.unp.me which is "The UNP Punjabi forum has discussions about Punjabi music..." The reference comes from a forum in which anybody can add content to, thus is unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imadethismistake[edit]

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

Non-notable one-person band. The vast majority of hits are social-network sites (facebook, myspace, youtube), and the few ghits in reliable independent sources are nothing more than passing mentions of the band. Horologium (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:11, 12 September 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 Logitech G series. v/r - T P 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech G35[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep At worst , easily mergeable into an article on the line of these products from a major manufacturer. But this is an important recent product , and there seem to be substantial reviews, which would make it independently notable. I consider the practice of nominating for deletion equally and indiscriminately major product article with source, and minor ones with poor sourcing, to be unhelpful. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are provided and it meets the general notability guideline, it simply needs work. How about doing some real article writing instead of just jumping to delete? Steven Walling • talk 22:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. Most of the review sites appear to be offering the thing for sale, making them non-independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logitech G series. That's enough coverage; Wikipedia doesn't need this enormous mass of uncited technical detail. I see that dozens of other products within that series also have their own Wikipedia articles, and I suspect they could all be boldly redirected to the G series article with a net improvement to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (sex symbol)[edit]

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

Almost everything in this stub article is original research, and if I where to remove all OR, then only "other connotations" will remain. If secondary research cannot be found I believe it's better to delete the article as whole. _→AzaToth 20:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; by sheer definition, that would make it aspire to becoming an inclusive database of all human knowledge. It negates that very definition if it were to exclude the articles that explain certain words and expressions, slang or otherwise, that have any perceived negative connotations, sexual, political or otherwise; especially in a case where clearly the word under discussion has historical and cultural significance from an evolutionary retrospective of an era. It would, in my opinion, be a remarkably silly pursuit if we were to take all published matter from all periods of human history and purge them of all words that were in regular contextual usage at the time of publication, but are deemed offensive now. I am not sure it is an intelligent or even conscionable pursuit to censor and edit history itself to make it more palatable in terms of today's obsessive political correctness. I agree that certain words should not be in usage in contemporary writing and conversation, as they might hurt or offend certain sections of society. But to refrain from explaining their very meanings in their usage in books and writings of an earlier age or to purge them altogether from vintage literature, is just plain officiousness. User:soutrikdd —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: How do we know this is original research, now? It is mostly unreferenced, but I do believe the term "bombshell" arose out of Jean Harlow's role in Bombshell (film) (1933). It may make more sense editorially to fold this into Sex symbol.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Powers ^T 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The word is notable for its social use and history. Here is a reliable sources: [9]. Those two books could also be of use, also they are not from academic presses: [10], [11]. There is probably more, those were just from the first two or three GBooks search pages. I haven't even touched GScholar. Now, the article is basically unreferenced, but that is no grounds for deletion. Just tag it as such and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is grounds for deletion when we have a closely-related topic already and the notability of the term qua term is marginal. Powers ^T 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources I've found suggest the subject is notable on its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in a more sexist day, this was a common term that had several meanings. Once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the concept is notable, but are you claiming that the word itself is notable? Powers ^T 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have some evidence to support that? There's nothing in particular in the article now, and of the three sources linked by Piotrus, the first spends all of a paragraph talking about the word, and the other two are likewise about the concept of a bombshell, not the word qua word. Powers ^T 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every sex symbol is a bombshell. I added in a reference to a clear definition. They were famous women who had hourglass figures, large breasts, were sexually attractive, and originally the term was only used for blondes. The article mentions this and has examples of famous women who the media referred to as "bombshells". Dream Focus 11:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sex symbol Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple and Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable short. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It won a BAFTA British Academy Children's Award [12] and it has received coverage such as [13].--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning a BAFTA makes it notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep Nominator's reason above for deletion was "Non-notable short. No sources found". The article made an assertion of notability when nominated. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. However, the assertion of notability was easy to verify with a simple search and one click of the mouse. The nom's statement that no sources could be found and that the film is thus non-notable has been shown as incorrect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a note about this failing WP:DEL#REASON and it being worth improving under WP:ATD: It took only a few minutes and 4 edits to add the article infobox and three decent (easily found) sources through regular editing. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:NOTABILITY standard is simple: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ... [A] one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial." There are three references in the article. The first is two sentences[14] and two sentences is not detailed, significant coverage. The second is an entry on a list[15] of BAFTA winners which is less than a sentence and is again not significant. The third is a news brief[16] about CiTV which has about a third of a sentence on this topic which is again trivial. An editor above points to a six-sentence news brief[17] from Animation Magazine. I suppose good-faith editors could debate whether six sentences provides the detail and depth required to meet the "significant" standard, but even if we reached consensus this article was significant coverage (and reliable and independent) then we would only have one source when we need multiple sources. There seems to be an assertion above that we should take winning a BAFTA children's award in the short form category as an indicator of notability (that is, that winning this award will generally result in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). I looked at other BAFTA children's award short form winners to see what sort of sources they had -- Nick Big Green Thing (2007),[18] My Say (2008),[19] See Something, Say Something (2009),[20] My Favourite Bedtime Story 2010[21] -- and I discovered that contrary to the assertions above, we generally do not write articles on winners of the BAFTA children's award in the short form category. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for sharing the redlinks that might encourage new articles on other BAFTA award winners if it is found that they themselves have coverage enough to suport their own articles. However, this discussion is not about unwritten articles, or who genrally might or might nore write them, it's about just this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for failing to address the lack of significant, detailed coverage and linking to an essay that you've failed to comprehend. Rangoondispenser (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but I do comprehend just fine how to recognize WP:WAX arguments when I see them. Thus, it was your comparisons to what has not yet been written that I chose to address, specially as by doing so you shared possibilities for further growth and improvement of this encyclopedia. We have a UK series that has recieved an award notable to the UK. As the availability of significant enough coverage in multiple reliable sources has already been shown, and that the article is further improvable, I need not "address" that concern. What I do comprehend very well that the policy requirement for verifiability does not demand that all sources used to verify must themselves be "significant coverage". I further comprehend quite well that sources should be considered in context to what is being sourced, and that we do have sources "substantial" enough in context to what is being sourced (an award-winning series comprised of 10 to 60 second clamation clips) to meet both WP:V and WP:NF. For such, we do not expect the same world-wide depth of coverage that we might for a big-budget studio blockbuster. We expect, and have found, enough for what it is. The topic meets Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3, which is repeated at Wikipedia:Notability (media) and such an award is verifiable. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I accept your lengthy apology. To make a case that this meets WP:NOTABILITY you should point to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Instead of "Notability is WP:INHERITED from the BAFTAs" and "Here's a link to some WP:GOOGLEHITS, there must be "WP:LOTSOFSOURCES" Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be misapplying or giving undue strength to WP:INHERITED, which as an essay appears written to define relationships between persons by its clarifying that a person being related to someone notable does not ipso-facto create a notability through that relationship. The nutshell for that essay page suggests that an editor avoid short one-liners or simple links, encourages that editors try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, and that editors explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies. To state simply that the series is a BAFTA winner, is one thing.... but to explain clearly that being a BAFTA award winner allows the reasonable presumption that a series is covered directly and in some detail, and the subject of independent secondary commentary and review in some manner, is just as that essay advises. Further, and further, WP:NOTABILITY has many parts beyond its use of WP:GNG, such as Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3... and such evidences requiring verifiability as offered. Notability, even if only to the UK as evidenced through winning an award notable to the UK, is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You are still failing to address the lack of significant, detailed coverage and just linking repeatedly to an essay that you've failed to comprehend. Your ignoring all the other editors' one liners and responding to my comment -- the most detailed argument here -- with an essay warning against short one-liners or simple links is part of what makes it clear that you have little comprehension of what you are linking to. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You were linking to an essay you apparently did not yourself comprehend, so that was what needed addressing. This is not the place to debate whether or not the GNG somehow "demands" a 3,000 word review or 5,000 word news article in order to support a 182 word article about an award-winning series about two balls of clay interacting. What IS cogent here is that other editors and myself have opined that verifiability of winning the award and the available coverage IS enough in this instance, per guideline and in context to what is being asserted. You feel you are correct and others are incorrect, but reaching consensus does not require a 100% agreement by all parties. Might we agree that we are allowed to disagree without batting the shuttlecock back and forth? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And now you are busy building a straw man argument, rather than providing examples of significant, detailed coverage in reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I am not, and I have been careful to be very clear in my responses, and simply and politely suggested that we can agree to disagree. Any insistance that all sources mandated by WP:V must be themselves "significant coverage" is not per policy nor guideline. Any insistance that all coverage must be substantial in their depth and scope in order to be considered as significant is not per policy nor guideline. Multiple examples have been offered, that while brief, are not simply trivial mentions in a list and DO "discuss the topic directly and in detail". Through them we have the meeting of current definitions of such set by WP:SIGCOV... a guideline that recognizes that even a short offering in a reliable source may fall under the term significant, as significant and substantial as defined by policy and guideline are not the same thing. I agree that more and bigger would be better, but I disagree that more and better are a mandate. Myself and others have opined that per guideline and policy, and in context to what is being sourced and verified, we have enough coverage for this short article to serve our readers and the project by identifying the topic and showing through its award, just why and where and how it may be considered worthy of notice. As I have explained myself quite carefully, please accept that I now wish to drop the stick. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        When you are arguing about 5,000 word sources when no one else is, you are debating a straw man. When you are arguing about whether Wikipedia:Verifiability requires "significant coverage" when no one else is, you are debating a straw man. Instead of building straw man arguments, you should instead be providing examples of significant, detailed coverage in reliable sources, but you have not. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The straw man argument is in implying that significant coverage must be itself be substantial coverage, and fails through the clarifying definitions set by policy and guideline. As significant-enough coverage in articles meeting the instruction "directly and in detail" have ALREADY been spoken of far above, and already source the improved article I need not debate the issue ad nauseum, beyond one last attempt at clarification: "Substantial" coverage and "significant" coverage are NOT the same thing. Bye. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not see where you have listed the multiple sources you believe provide significant coverage of this topic, so please simply provide the diff where you have. Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Being a BAFTA award winner allows the reasonable presumption that a series is covered directly and in detail, and the subject of independent secondary commentary and review in some manner. If sources were not availble, we'd not have an article. And while always delightful to have a source providing a 3,000 or 4,000 word article from which to glean information, such is not a mandate of policy nor guideline. A shorter article or a decent more-than-trivial mention within a larger article is considered significant coverage just so long as the topic being sourced is spoken of directly and in some detail.[22] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are found. BAFTA British Academy Children's Award also Okip 02:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to which multiple sources you believe provide significant coverage of this topic, per WP:NOTABILITY? Or do you just think there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES? Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:00, 8 September 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, BusterD (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I had previously closed this as a non-administrator. I have reopened and relisted this debate at the request of an editor. BusterD (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per several reliable sources in the article and listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to which multiple sources you believe provide significant coverage of this topic, per WP:NOTABILITY? Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN - The AFD notice was not put back when the non-admin closure was re-opened on Sept 9. I have added the notice back today. The listing period should take this into consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Purple and Brown have been noted by being presented with a significant award in the form of a BAFTA. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Recreated by a blocked/formerly blocked user ChristianandJericho (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of who created it, there's a case to be made for notability, is there not? There have been articles dedicated to her even though she's sort of a level below Rebecca Black.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete...? Yes, there's articles dedicated to her, but so do many other people who had their "fifteen minutes of fame" that did not get their Wikipedia article here. If one had taken a look at the statistics search, Jenna Rose basically rode on Rebecca Black's infamy, and already nothing is heard of her just when Rebecca Black news slowed down just a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.10 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was NOT recreated by a blocked or formerly blocked user... it was created by me. I have assisted Jenna and her family by posting relevant information received directly from the family on the Internet. Other contributors have since added relevant information to make this page more useful. I don't know who put up the original page that was already deleted, but my intention was to add to the already exiting page to add accurate and relevant information according to the terms of Wikipedia. If there is a question to the accuracy or relevance of this page, inquiries should be directed to Jenna Rose and her family. It is easy to find their contact information, or I can provide it. Furthermore, Jenna's popularity has grown based on her own talent and viral videos. As of the moment I am writing this, her YouTube video "My Jeans" has over 14 million views. Let's work together to keep this page in compliance, to keep it relevant, and to keep in useful. Scott 24.91.26.28 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a previous AfD was created, this page should not exist --ChristianandJericho (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because God said so? The previous AfD is not dispositive in cases like this of internet-driven "celebrities".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some assorted points:
- The previous AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose, earlier this year. It was deleted, and unless the new article is substantially different from that article it should be handled at deletion review and not here.
- If the article was created by a blocked user, that's a deal-killer: we automatically delete such material even if it's good on the grounds of enforcing the block. Apparently this isn't the case, though, or claimed not to be the case, so this may be moot.
- This person is not only a minor but a very young minor (7th-grader apparently) and we are and should be very conservative about articles about such young persons out of BLP concerns. Even if the article is entirely laudatory now it might not always be so. If she retains an article and later something occurs that is not so great, there'll be an article to hang that info into. If she was clearly very notable then we'd have to have an article. But if she's only marginally notable, we want to be as conservative as possible here, I'm just saying.
- There's an article about her (here) in Newsday, a highly notable publication. There's also the Baldwin Herald (here), which I guess is a very small paper but on the other hand it's a fully developed feature-length article, just about this person. There's also coverage in Patch, which seems to be an online-only entity but apparently has a real editorial staff and so forth. They've even noted her existence in France, but that's also just a website (I don't know how notable it is). Whether this meets the WP:GNG requirement of "significant coverage" I don't know. Probably. Meeting the GNG doesn not guarantee inclusion, though.
- Is 14 million YouTube hits a lot or a little? Can anybody answer this? If it's one of the ten highest total ever achieved, that'd mean a lot more than if its just something that happens to hundreds of videos a year. Also the 14 million claim is not ref'd.
- I'm voting delete on the basis of marginal entity who is a very young minor, besides which it was already deleted. Four people (including the nominator) voted Delete there, one suggested a redirect, and nobody with standing wanted to keep the article. I suggest the person closing this discussion add the weight of their numbers and arguments when considering the outcome. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep it): The Page is accurate, informative, and useful... we can only wonder why the delete comments are being made. InternetConcepts (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Basically I'm on the other side of the line as Herostratus, I think sources cross the line into notability. I don't see advantage to deletion, because this is the kind of thing people will be googling in years hence, "do you remember that 'my jeans' girl..."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage found confirms she is notable. Instead of just talking about her for her first song, they even meniton her later for her next one [23]. Dream Focus 04:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Coverage is not broad enough to warrant overturning the consensus established at the first AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jam (rapper)[edit]

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

Only sources are a couple of blogs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no charting records, no major label records, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One song released on itunes and no album yet. Not surprisingly, there's no coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this emcee in reliable sources; doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 01:57, 15 September 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 deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-rays from lightning[edit]

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

Article is filled with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Article creator has been indef blocked for repeated violations of these policies. References are tenuous at best and rarely if ever reference the text that they are supposed to. [24] Trusilver 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be an article in this based on a Yahoo and Google search, this sounds more like an essay than an article. Blueboy 96 18:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scorched-earth policy with respect to this editor's contributions. Bits of this article, at least, were copied from other Wikipedia articles without attribution. But more worryingly, there is too much potential for copyright violations from elsewhere, and too much incoherent nonsense to make these articles (including the one under discussion) worth the community effort to rescue them. See this ANI thread. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking for copyvios now after reading the ANI thread--haven't found any blatant ones yet, or any derivatives. Depending on how many there are, I may change my vote to a speedy G12 and move that the author's indefblock be endorsed as a ban (if he isn't considered banned already). Blueboy 96 19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After looking at the article, I do not see anything to justify deletion. It is sourced, interesting, and written about a legitimate subject. Whatever problems the creator of the article might have, this is not a reason for deletion. Biophys (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with scorched-earth policy on this. Weird articles, mixed of OR and SYNTH and not worth the effort cleaning up. Articles can be recreated from scratch if there's a genuine topic there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regalia (color)[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a non-notable shade of purple. bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate school color and it is properly sourced. Keraunos (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does that exempt the article from the notability guidelines and WP:DICDEF? bobrayner (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the Clemson web page says "522D80 = Regalia"; that's not enough to establish notability or base an article on. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the word appears in a list of the colours that an institution uses as part of its "brand" does not constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that is the only information that the article gives, apart from the fact that it is "a dark shade of purple". A proprietary term with no evidence of notability, and also no more than a dictionary definition: either of those would be sufficient grounds for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest merging some content into Clemson University, but there really isn't any content to merge. There isn't substantial coverage to establish notability for this color.--Slon02 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as well argued by JamesBWatson. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceil[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a non-notable shade of blue. bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unsourced, non-notable one-line article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant use of this term, let alone substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also, the article is no more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article provides no more information that can't be found in List of Crayola crayon colors. Also no indication of notability of this crayon color used by one particular company. I can't imagine this article being expanded from a one-line dictionary definition into a full article.--Slon02 (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Unlike most of the nominated colors, ceil is not a manufacturer's invention; it is a commonly used generic term for a color, including for a fabric popular in scrub suits[25][26][27] and for paints.[28] The article needs expansion but it should be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm changing my opinion to Delete per WP:DICDEF. This is a real and notable word, but not all words need Wikipedia articles. The word should have an entry at Wiktionary, but not here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denim (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of Crayola. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denim is a widely used material in fashion and therefore its color is notable and should be kept in Wikipedia. Keraunos (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on Denim; you just linked to it. However, just because X is notable does not mean that anything related to X deserves an article of its own. The shade of Crayola is not notable. bobrayner (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Denim already has an article, which is perfectly sufficient. –jacobolus (t) 03:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unsourced. If the claim that it's a Crayola color is correct, cite a source at least. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this word has any significant usage as a colour name. The article tells us that the word has been used as a proprietary name for a colour of a crayon, but neither the article nor any other source I have seen indicates that it has any more general use. The only reason given so far for keeping ("Denim is a widely used material in fashion and therefore its color is notable") makes no sense at all: elephant are notable enough to have an article Elephant, but it does not automatically follow that their colour is notable, and we don't have an article on Elephant (color). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article provides no more information that can't be found in List of Crayola crayon colors. Also no indication of notability of this crayon color used by one particular company. While I agree that denim is a commonly used fabric, this is not about that fabric - this article is about one of the many crayon colors that Crayola makes.--Slon02 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangria (color)[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a non-notable shade of red. bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this color has been in use since 1382, it is notable and should definitely be kept in Wikipedia. Keraunos (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true. The 1382 usage was of "sanguine". According to the OED, "sangria" appeared in 1961. If the only basis for the article is a falsehood, that's another reason to delete it. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unsourced; the source Keraunos mentions above is for sanguine, and that's not much. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (The word has not existed since 1382, but even if it had, that would not make it notable. There are thousands of English words recorded much earlier than that, but we don't have articles on all of them: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the other nominated colors. Manufacturers commonly invent names for the colors of their paints or dyes or crayons, and that is all they are: a manufacturer's invented name. That does not make them notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an article that describes one of the countless not-notable colors. There are countless plausible names for any particular color- this one is just an example of them. It's just not notable. I can't imagine this article being expanded from a one-line dictionary definition into a full article.--Slon02 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan red[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a non-notable shade of red. bobrayner (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tuscan red is a notable red pigment being discussed in detail in sources such as Organic coating technology and The painter, gilder, and varnisher's companion. I'm not sure about the other colours but, as the nominator doesn't seem to have followed WP:BEFORE and misrepresents our WP:DICDEF policy, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Warden (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tuscan red is a notable color used widely in art as a pigment. It is also used in interior design and in Southwest Design. It is also the name of a Prismacolor colored pencil. The color Tuscan red was famous in the 1950s as the color of the electric locomotives of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Keraunos (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some of this “detailed discussion” from these sources is actually brought into the article. As it stands, it’s entirely useless and unencyclopedic. –jacobolus (t) 03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. The nice thing about listing sources and relevant content here is that these AFD discussions are never deleted. It is therefore more sensible to work where the content is safe from deletion rather then where it is not. If you want the article updated immediately, you are free to do this yourself. Warden (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please check the article in its current state. It really was extremely popular as a rail car passenger color. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the standards of WP:AWW. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable pigment and associated color. The nomination of this group of articles was quite clearly done without considering the possibilities for development of the articles--which varies. This is one of the notable ones. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good example of a color that actually is notable. It's widespread use by the railroad industry, and the coverage of it by that industry, is good enough for me and Wikipedia.--Slon02 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This color has enough substance and enough sources to qualify for an article here. (Kudos to Keraunos and Novickas for their improvements to the article since nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Day (album)[edit]

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

No indication that a Daughtry album of this name a) exists (in fact, the band's singer has said "I can truly say I don't know what it is yet.") and b) will be released anytime soon. Without concrete information like a release date or track listing, anything about a potential third Daughtry album belongs in Daughtry#2011–present: Third studio album and future plans. C628 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, WP:CRYSTAL, no sources verifying any of the information, etc. Also, I'd like to point out that the article creator has already tried to do this before a few months prior, as seen here and here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the artist doesn't know the name, then it's obvious that the article writer is pulling information out of his ass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really? Again? See Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Third Daughtry Album. This is at least the fourth time the creator, LostIntheCityLights (talk · contribs), has created this article. Trouting is justified. tedder (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only echo arguments previously stated. Creator has not put forth any effort to prove that this article is deserving of creation. Shouldn't even be a question IMO since we just went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Third Daughtry Album MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this article appears premature (WP:CRYSTAL). No confirmed album title, track listing or release date in reliable sources at this time; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. The same editor that created Untitled Third Daughtry Album also created this one with the same non-information. Aspects (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not only has the user already created this article in the past, but now has removed the AFD notification from the article at least once. (The user has done it once, and a random IP has done it once...) Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 16 September 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. delete. v/r - T P 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources are in this article, nor ever have been, so far as I can tell. Some users claim that it's listed in the OED - I have not verified this, but listing in a dictionary is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. ~T P W 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word facepalm is not actually listed in the OED. To find sources for this gesture, it seems that other phrases are needed. For example, here's a detailed paper on "hand over face" gestures which states that hand-over-face gestures are an important channel of nonverbal communication. The topic just seems to require ordinary editing per our editing policy, rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the gesture has been around since time immemorial, that's not the point, the point is the word itself. It's a neologism not significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So find a better title and move/ redirect the article there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article needs to be improved, including the provision of better references, deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is justified if there are no references to be found to prove the article's notability. If someone wants to recreate the article having found suitable references there would be nothing to stop them from doing so. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is in the Oxford Dictionaries as published here. Facepalm
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as has been stated that is not sufficient grounds for keeping the article. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also the first discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 12. Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the 'first discussion', this is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Facepalm. We're discussing an article, not a redirect, so your linked discussion isn't relevant to this one. --78.150.157.34 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "the first discussion" I simply meant the one at the top of that page. Cnilep (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cnilep, thank you. I reviewed the discussion, and the two sources which were added to the article that was created as a result . . . and discovered that neither one is worth a darn anymore. The first can't be found, and the second, a search link in Google Books, turns up nothing for the term. My nomination is based on my quite reasonable belief that no reliable sources can be found, and I will be most pleased to weigh in as a keep should that belief be disproven. Deletion is not cleanup . . . it is reserved for articles which don't have reliable sources and aren't likely to get them, such as this one.--~T P W 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a search at Google books does show its use in published sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Berean, that gave me pause to reconsider. I'm still stuck, though . . . looking at the difference between an encyclopedia and dictionary, I can't find that any of those book results lend themselves towards this being anything more than a definition. They appear to simply be usages of the word, not anything that comes close to WP:N. Seriously, am I missing something?--~T P W 22:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those published works are of note. Terrible novels or internet pop culture. --78.144.168.82 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would probably be much more productive for the anonymous editor(s) to create an account and weigh in with a delete, instead of simply badgering each person who does so. No anonymous commenter has added anything to the discussion which I didn't include in the nomination, so it's safe to assume that each of the participating editors have already considered those points. I don't expect that repeating them incessantly is likely to alter their views.--~T P W 12:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly not safe to assume that, as I am convinced they would not be saying what they are if they had. And a single vote from me obviously isn't going to change matters; we do things by consensus here and the current consensus appears to be Keep. Why you're suggesting stifling discussion, in a discussion, would be 'much more productive' eludes me. --78.150.166.47 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting stifling discussion, I was suggesting stifling redundancy. Since we do, indeed, base decisions solely upon the weight, not number, of the arguments, there's no real point in bringing the same points up again and again. I happen to agree with your points, but I also take it on faith that other editors have read them, understand them, and see things differently. I do find your belief that your own arguments are so scintillating that no one could possibly disagree if they were to but read them to be charming, however.--~T P W 01:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.110.98 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An entry in the OED does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, if it's in the OED it belongs in Wiktionary. The article was deleted through AfD last time for lack of sources, this time it has one, nothing else has changed it's still the same as it was in 2007. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:39am • 01:39, 16 September 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. G3 Alexf^(talk) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cokadenden[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 16:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3 and tagged as such - obvious and blatant hoax. Not only does this word not exist nor does the film. Finally compare 'Greg O'Brien' with the creator's handle - Greg.OB ! Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Page[edit]

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

This is a non-notable artist and the page information is incorrect and I have found no sources to back up a lot of the information, such as if the artist is really dead or if her singles or albums really charted in all those different countries. LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored that large portion of the article that was deleted with the AfD nomination edit. AllyD (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 I now see that this article has been being subjected to what looks like lots of bizarre IP vandalism, adding unreliable information, so I stripped the discography back to what looks like a safe point. Given what's been happening here, the article needs protected? AllyD (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The damage done to the article isn't really a justification for deletion. As to whether she meets the Notability criteria, #1 might be argued by the UK press attention (Guardian 2009 article, Daily Telegraph 2010, Daily Mail 2010) but it feels more like comment on PR push than solid critical attention. So more would be needed. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is mentioned in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Combining the Telegraph write-up already referenced in the article, the three sources listed above by AllyD, non-trivial coverage at Allmusic and Spinner, an album review and two live reviews, I'm satisfied that this person passes WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per reliable sources listed above by user Gongshow. Topic passes WP:BAND, number 1. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nogai Eyalet[edit]

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

No Ottoman province by this name appears to have ever existed. It's not depicted on any Ottoman map, either. LK (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear that it ever really existed. Severe shortage of sources (and I tried trawling old history journals &c). bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yılmaz Öztuna referred to this eyalet here. But I cannot find "eyalet" in other sources. In 1548, Suleiman I gave the title of "Emirulumera" to the Little Nogay chieftain Yusuf. In 1555, Yusuf was killed by lzmail, who was one of the brothers of Yusuf and conspired with Moscow. Takabeg (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I first had intention to vote for deletion because according to WP:RS: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Still, Yılmaz Öztuna is so reputable scholar that I tried to examine more sources about Yusuf and Izmail. Two of them are described in this source as leaders of nomad Nogai tribes influenced by Moscow, "small remnant of Golden Horde". I checked with Google Translate, and it says that eyalet means state on turkish language. This source treats Yusuf as prince. This source also repeatedly treats Yusuf as Nogai Prince, distinct from Ottoman Empire. This source even refer to Yusuf as Khan. This source explains in detail the situation between Yusuf, Ismail and Moscow, without mentioning the Ottoman Empire. Based on my research I conclude that Yılmaz Öztuna probably referred to some kind of Nogai state instead to an Ottoman province so I support deletion of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Marie Hutchinson[edit]

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

I declined a speedy delete nomination on this because I feel the second sentence is an assertion of significance. That said, I feel this fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. President of a minor non-profit and a guest speaker just dont scream notability to me. v/r - T P 14:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:55, 12 September 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 Anglo#Scotland. v/r - T P 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Scot[edit]

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

This should be deleted as phooey, that will only ever be phooey.

OK, the term exists. It is used a fair amount, with absolutely no consistency, to denote something or someone that the speaker thinks is a bit English and a bit Scottish. But that's all dicdef, and covered by WP:NOT and wiktionary.

As for the rest, it is just (and could only ever be rewritten to be) original research, and highly subjective POV. Just look at the weasel wording Blair and Cameron could be described as "anglo-Scots" - well, yes, but you can describe anyone as anything you like. If I've got an English great-granny on my mum's side, I could be described as Anglo-Scots - but then I could be described as English too if that floats your boat.

"An estimated 9-10% of people living in Scotland were born in England". So, bloody, what? There's a bunch of English people resident in Scotland? There's a bunch of Scots whose parents were working in England at the time of their birth. Few, if any, of these people would self-describe as Anglo-Scots. Some will call themselves Scots, some English, and a few British.

Can anyone give me any verifiable facts that could be included in this article, which don't amount to a dic-def? Scott Mac 14:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plausible search term. I agree that there are concerns about the existing content, but I would imagine we can do better for our end-users than a redlink. Things to think about: I observe that wikt:Anglo-Scot is a redlink, and I see that we have a category:Anglo-Scots.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Anglo#Scotland, I suppose. The article is likely only ever to be a discursive dictionary definition reflecting various people's views. I thought the term had a rather specific meaning (hint Alec Douglas-Home), somewhat like Anglo-Irish, but it seems I am wrong. The term is not in my Oxford English Dictionary except by analogy with an example, Anglo-Danish, under anglo- Finally, a less disdainful nomination would have been more appropriate. Thincat (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the term is used with lots of different meanings that no one can agree on (see [29] for a partial set of examples), presumably it should be a disambiguation page pointing users to the possible meanings. cab (call) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The meaning is quite clear. It is someone or something believed by the speaker to have a significant origin in both Scotland and England. But that's just a dicdef. Who or what deserves the title is entirely subjective and not neutrally documentable.--Scott Mac 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persimmon (color)[edit]

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

Not notable; it's a dictionary definition. bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – another color that's unsourced except for a mention in one book's color list, like most of the others. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant use of this term as a colour name, let alone substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also, the article is no more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't show in any way that this color name is significantly used, or that it has significant color in sources- it's covered in a dictionary by the looks of it, which must be how we have a dictionary definition as an article. I can't imagine this article being expanded from a one-line dictionary definition into a full article.--Slon02 (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and most of the others. This term may be used occasionally to describe a color which resembles that of a persimmon, but such usage is not common enough or notable enough to warrant its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literarily[edit]

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

Article on a new magazine that was dePRODded by article creator (who is listed as the editor on the magazine's website). Original PROD reason was "New magazine, not a single item published yet, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nothing to add. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As has been said, no suggestion of notability at all, as well as potential COI. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 21:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 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 Cherlise. v/r - T P 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love U Right[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS. No charts. No cover versions by multiple artists. No awards. Sourced to YouTube, artist's private fansite, and similar dreck. —Kww(talk) 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe this article should be deleted i found it useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raterr101 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raterr101 is the article creator.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails the notability guidelines (WP:NSONGS). I have had to delete a couple of elements from the article (lengthy quote in breach of Fair Use and a cited lyrics website that quite frankly is neither reputable nor safe and possibly breaches copyright law by reprinting lyrics). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cherlise. Non-notable songs, per WP:NSONGS, "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." No album article exists, and redirecting this single to the artist seems perfectly reasonable. If it charts or receives significant coverage in reliable sources, then I'll support an individual article at that time. Gongshow ^Talk 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of My Little Pony characters. v/r - T P 00:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minty (My Little Pony)[edit]

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

This character is not notable enough to be an independent article. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, which requires that the article be based upon "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The contents are currently based on fansites and wikis, and there don't appear to be sources that would allow this article to pass WP:V.—Kww(talk) 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the article's creation date, it had a long time since 2006 to justify it's existence. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:V is concerned. I sincerely doubt the New York Times is going to publish an article about a My Little Pony character, but I dug up a few references from google books to show that Minty does in fact exist, contrary to the claims that WP:V is failed. There's also a Tokyopop published comic called "A Very Minty Christmas" with the character appearing on the cover. Hell, there's even a movie by the same name, My Little Pony: A Very Minty Christmas, with reviews by DVD Talk [30], The Trades, and DVD Verdict . I doubt it'll satisfy WP:V since nothing presented here will likely be allowed, but whatever. There's nothing to establish notability, but the character isn't a made up hoax, either. She's not on the new show! Kill the impure pony! 187! I don't want this article kept since no frikkin pony satisfies WP:GNG enough to have her own derpy article, but at least Merge any relevant info with that List of My Little Pony characters. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, Sharon M. (2010). Toys and American culture: an encyclopedia. p. 214. ISBN 0313347980.
Hayes, Summer (2006). The My Little Pony G3 Collector's Resource. p. 115. ISBN 1411675908.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

No one said that there was doubt as to Minty's existence. WP:V demands that we base articles on third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Not get some trivial nugget of information from third-party sources, or discover passing mentions in third-party sources, but that we base the article on third-party sources. If the article derives most of its content from sources that are not third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it fails to meet WP:V. In this case, you've managed to source approximately 3 sentences of material related to Minty, and those are to pretty dubious sites. This one is a satire, if you had taken the time to read it. The book would be reliable, but all it provides is the character name.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Smerge per Vodello. --Malkinann (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search found many verifiable third sources on the character, who is one of the original My Little Pony characters. I added a source from Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia by Sharon Scott to the article as proof. Mathewignash (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This trival addition hardly crosses the threahold of making the article based on third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone see the irony in a user named Rainbow Dash nominating Minty for deletion? Anyway, this seems an obvious Merge candidate (to List of My Little Pony characters). Powers ^T 15:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about sir. You must be mentally challenged or in dire need of having to see a psych. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Simone (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional pony and toy does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. All that appears with a search engine test are unreliable sources, like fan pages, primary sources or tertiary sources (like Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia), but there is no objective evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources that give analytic or evaluative claims about the pony or the toy. The article itself does not provide evidence of notability for the character as there is nothing related to the reception or significance of the it, only release notes or summary-only descriptions. My Little Pony as a whole may be notable, but notability is not inherited to every single content fork. This particular toy/character seems more like an an unnecessary split that does not have notability as a stand-alone subject. I do no believe that a merge is warranted since the information is barely sourced, that which is referenced falls into what Wikipedia is not and it doesn't add anything of importance to the main article. I also don't think that a redirect is necessary since the disambiguation in the article title makes it an implausible search term. Jfgslo (talk) 05:08, 17 September 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 Tony Blair#Marriage and children. v/r - T P 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Blair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED, just that he is the son of Tony Blair doesn't make him notable. He has done nothing noteworthy yet (as he is only 11). Propose making it a redirect to Tony Blair like Blair's other children. Relevant information in this article could be included under the "Marriage and children" section. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 13:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to Tony Blair#Marriage and children per nom. This person has largely been kept out of the public eye. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very clear example of somebody who is known only as being a child of famous parents. It would be a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED even if he were not a minor. That he happened to be born whilst his father was PM is just WP:EVENT and part of the biography of his parents. --AJHingston (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Child of famous parents is only claim to fame. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 22:13, 13 September 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 John Holmes (actor). v/r - T P 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empress[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. While it is true that there are several books with information about this pornographic film, it is only a few sentences or less in each book. The sentences are related to a bigger topic such as an actor's life and this type of film in general. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The New York Times review in the article isn't even about this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shot a few months after John Holmes (actor) tested positive for HIV, the most it might merit is a mention in the Holmes article as one of the last two films he ever made. However, notability might yet be sourced through Italian language reviews found about this Italian porn film under its original Italian title Carne bollente. The Times article simply confirms Holmes as having shot in Italy and engaging in unprotected sex for the film without informing his co-stars.[31] Not a nice thing to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 28 August 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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Holmes (actor) The only notability is that Holmes appeared in it, and this is more than adequately covered in his article. Kauffner (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a bit better covered there now, as I just made sure we have a decently sourced redirect target at John Holmes (pornographic actor)#Later years Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 5 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kauffner. I could not find significant coverage about this film, and I think that discussing it in the context of the actor is fine. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chenoa Maxwell[edit]

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

I added some refs, but I'm not sure if they are reliable sources. The subject does not meet WP:ARTIST, and non-trivial secondary coverage is lacking. Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the URL contains "wordpress" that pretty much means unrealible. However, I did find a suitable RS to cite the statement to replace the wordpress one. The questionable Uptown Magazine was replaced by its own source Posh Glam. Added a few other cites as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 23 August 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, 28 August 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, 4 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Still inadequate discussion to gauge consensus. Relisting one more time hoping to gain eyes. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the subject's acting career is sufficiently notable to maintain the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual and her works have been the recipient of coverage in independent secondary sources. Squeeks by WP:ENT and WP:GNG. We can let this one remain and grow through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nothing to say on her career outside photography. As for her career as photographer, she may for all I know be first-rate, but the sources so far adduced for her photography depend on her minor celebrity. When a major source on a photographer is something called "Poshglam", the article is desperate. (Where's the coverage in photography sources?) I have no objection to deletion, though people who know more about TV celebrity than I do will have to consider that part of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max (ripping software)[edit]

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

This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 28 August 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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:39, 7 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant sources that I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Magic[edit]

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

Moving to AfD after contested WP:PROD. My concern is this article regarding a podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements. There are no independent sources to establish notability. Regarding podcast awards, whilst this show has been nominated for a few awards, it has not won any categories (a requirement of web notability). Breno ^talk 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:26, 29 August 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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:40, 7 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Pintarič[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. I am unable to locate significant reliable secondary source coverage to establish that the subject is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; that his work has become a significant monument, has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I reviewed the materials I could find which include one small article in Vecer back in 2008 [32] where the a lot of the article talks about the Prometheus group (a group he founded), and gives a little of his background including one quote about him. The article does discuss his plans to release a CD in the future, but I am unable to locate sources reviewing that CD at a later date in a reliable secondary source. The article itself was written by a member of the group Prometheus, so it does not really qualify as secondary coverage. Another source is [33] which just lists him as being part of a performance in August 2009, which would be routine coverage for a creative professional. There is another passing reference here [34] where he is mentioned as the producer, but nothing else is written about him as far as I can tell. The last is here [35] and provides a reference once again as him being a director of a performance, which is a usual activity for a creative. I am unable to find significant enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability from the sources I can locate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The vec.com article is not "one small article",as claimed in the nomination, but a full story--see the Google translation. It shows that he is considered important as a director. The sobota.com articles are not "passing mentions" as claimed in the nom, but a short complete article, here, the GT version and a =nother short article about this role as a director here. A mention would be something like "X was among the 5 new directors who directed plays at the festival " -- we see plenty of those, and I agree with CV that such are not sources for notability. What more could be found by looking in print sources in the appropriate language is outside my ability to determine. The article emphasizes his authorship, but i do not know what would be suitable review sources here . I am, btw, quite concerned about the misrepresentation of sources by the nom; I would be more concerned if they hadn't given the link, because the link enable people to see for themselves--so it's misunderstanding of what is "substantial" rather than deliberate misrepresentation. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG, as noted in my nomination the first article in Vecer is written by a member of his organization. That does not qualify as a secondary source. The sobota articles are in fact passing mentions. Read them again. The first mentions him once, as being the director and then the rest of the article focuses on the fairy tale, not him. The second focuses on the play, and only mentions him once. I stand by my assessment and am quite frankly surprised you view them as a misrepresentation, and feel that you representing my nom as misrepresentation is in fact a misrepresentation (how is that for a mind bender?). We clearly differ on our interpretations of those sources. But differing views is exactly why I provided the links to the sources for others to read them and judge for themselves. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments are incredibly shaky. There are other sources that are not on the Internet. For ex. the Murski Val Radio, the Porabje newspaper, etc. Doncsecz^talk 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 28 August 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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Most of the Slovenian Google hits for "Branko Pintarič" are for a plumber, not the writer. This certainly does not automatically disqualify the article, but it does make the subject considerably less noteworthy than the "famous in Slovenia" label accorded to him by the article's creator:

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" vodovod] (plumbing) = 577

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" vodovodni] (plumbing) = 276

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" režiser] (director) = 149

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" igralec] (actor) = 194

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" scenarist] (screenwriter) = 205

Of more concern is that the article in its current form is seriously unbalanced, serving more as a tool to advance the article writer's agenda regarding the Prekmurje dialect (evident in his/her other contributions) than to provide useful information on the life and work of Branko Pintarič. Consequently, the article should be given some kind of advisory label. Doremo (talk) 13:14, 4 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Deason[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 19:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep Erm, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. See Deason's entry in the AMG electronica guide, which is extensive and details his importance to the Detroit techno scene. Chubbles (talk) 22:41, 28 August 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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the AMG Electronica Guide, a Google search shows album reviews in The Wire and Option. Moswento (talk | contribs) 16:59, 4 September 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, BusterD (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree about GNG.Can barely find anything on him at all. Gooogling just brings up his personal social networking accounts etc.RafikiSykes (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atypical, adjuvant and potentiators[edit]

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

Unreferenced. My attempts to search for reliable sources on this have just found material sourced from this article in the copies-of-Wikipedia echo chamber. Without verifiable reliable sources to back it up, this article fails to meet the WP:V and WP:RS criteria for inclusion. The Anome (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Catchall category of drugs, poorly named, which does not seem to have any validity as a notable class of drugs - based on searching. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews to show these words being used together. Fails WP:GNG. Possibly original research. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 17 September 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 Kids Incorporated. v/r - T P 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Delgin[edit]

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

child star who was knwn in one series; no other notable credits, thus appearing to fail WP:GNG. Few Ghits of relevance. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kids Incorporated, the series for which he had recognition in the early 1990s. Here's somebody who has kept a very low profile since his his Young Artist Award nomination in 1993 and his win in 1994.... going on to study law and now working as an attorney,[36] having passed the The California Bar Examination in 2007 and now woking in Irvine.[37] We do have his verifiable nomination and award, but nothing else from which to build and source a decent BLP or support a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lynde[edit]

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

The only reliable source I was able to provide something like significant coverage is the Boston Herald, but the coverage is in the "Local Coverage" section. I'm opening this discussion for more thorough consideration. ^Bongo_matic 11:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete poorly documented claims of popularity on the internet. The "famous" site Wattpad is a repository for self published books and nothing more, and it would take really exceptional evidence to show something published there only to be notable. Not that being on Wattpad's hotlist would make someone notable, but she isn't even on it: , [38] . I'm more open to claims of notability on the internet than most people here, but this promotional article does not meet my rather flexible standards. There have been many 17 year old authors who have become notable; there are very fe who have become notable at age 17, and here again, exceptional evidence is required for such an extraordinary claim. DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you clear out the social networks and wiki mirrors, the only coverage appears to be local news, which does not meet the requirement for ...significant coverage in reliable sources... in the general notability guidelines.--CharlieDelta (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable "author". SL93 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:31, 12 September 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. d by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 06:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of sex segregation[edit]

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

I see no foreseeable references on this obscure topic. I highly doubt references on the origin of sex segregation will materialize because sex segregation is cultural and not found in all cultures or societies. IIt may originate from different culture, or it may have originated in 20 000 BC before we had record of its origin. WeIf we do get references, we can recreate the article at that time. Curb Chain (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sex segregation. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change Risk Anti-Patterns[edit]

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

Previously nominated for speedy deletion as hoax/vandalism; that was rejected, and I have found further resources that indicate that if it is a hoax it is indeed quite an elaborate one! Hovever coverage seems to be limited to blog postings and the like, and WP:N appears not to be met. To complicate matters, the same subject seems to be also known as "Change Risk Analysis and Predictions". Is this notable or not? RichardOSmith (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems eligible under the "no content" rule. All it has is a link to itself. So be sure to also delete the CRAP (Computer Programming) redirect. Creator seems a single-purpose account: only edits in main space have been these two. W Nowicki (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat (color)[edit]

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

7-word dictionary definition; "Wheat is a color that resembles wheat". Not notable. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Francis Bond (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's a bit far fetched to have an article on every shade and every hue of every colour. I see very little potential for developing of this stub, or others like it, into something encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wheat is one of the X11 colors and is therefore widely used by web site designers. It is important that all X11 colors be in Wikipedia. Besides, this color has been in use since 1711. Therefore the color wheat is notable enough that it should stay in Wikipedia. Keraunos (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps there has been some confusion. I'm sure that it's important for X11 documentation to include all X11 labels for colours, but that's not wikipedia. At question here is the notability. Can you provide any sources which discuss wheat - the colour - in depth? That's what wikipedia's rules require. No doubt the rules for X11 documents are different. Looking at it from another angle, you yourself pointed to an article listing all the X11 colours in one place, which rather negates the rest of that argument; even if the standalone article on wheat were notable (it isn't), it would still be redundant. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a sourced X11 color. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An X11 color. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Wheat is a color that resembles wheat". Really? — This article is a joke! Its reference at X11 color names is more than sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a web standard color , it can be described exactly, not just in the vague phrase above. It's a sufficiently notable use to make the color notable. Every such color should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I realise that this AfD is now unlikely to swing towards "delete", but I must express my continuing frustration at being unable to find the exemption for X11 colours in the GNG, despite the many keep votes which appear to be based on this. We already have a central article listing the X11 colours, making stubs like this one as redundant as they are non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just do a 2nd nomination later on for all of the X11 colors. You're right: the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. Just because it is a documented color doesn't mean it's worthy of an article. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A good idea to have an article for each pantone color. Glad you suggested it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If somebody showed how each individual pantone colour passes the GNG, I would support that 100%. However, here we're discussing Wheat (color), which fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not discussing whether or not X11 colors as a whole are notable- we're discussing whether this particular X11 color is notable. If someone wants information on it, I proudly present the X11 article itself. It happens to already provide almost all of the information in this article already. This particular color is not notable.--Slon02 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per P199 and Slon02. The X11 colors are all listed in their own Wikipedia article and that is sufficient coverage. There is no evidence that the color "wheat" has any notability or significant usage outside of that context. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technology economics[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced article, probable original research, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is easy. It's falls foul of WP:NEO, and reads like original research Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, original research. Safiel (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything in google scholar about "Technology economics". LK (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced OR, on a topic too broad to be useful. Since mining, agriculture, and services all use technology, what would be outside this definition? -- 202.124.72.149 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic may be notable, but the literature doesn't appear to use that name -- I searched through pages of results at JSTOR without finding anything. I have no objection to recreation (at some appropriate title) if sources are used. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Barcelona[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per contested A10 deletion at [39]. I am neutral. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 05:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per plain old common sense. There's nothing in this article that can't be put into a few paragraphs under the Barcelona article. Every city, state, town, county, suburb or half-acre of arable land does not need a separate article describing the weather. Trusilver 08:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - The article has gained more substance since this AfD started, I can definitely see the benefit of letting it remain. It definitely has surpassed the amount of information to comfortable place it within the Barcelona article. Trusilver 03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First fix url target or remove ref 12 and use PDF/A. The Barcelona article is too big for a merge. J L L 08:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barcelona is one of the largest metropolis in Europe and has a perfect Mediterranean climate pattern. Ideally suited to the Category:Climate by city. Also, now this article is too big for Climate section within main article (Barcelona#Climate), likewise the Climate of Barcelona article will be expanded. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate WP:SPLIT of large article (over 62k readable prose) Barcelona. Subtropical-man has done great work bringing this section up to article quality and it is ready for that now. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources added to the article after the AfD nomination that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianCafe.com[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability, spammy in tone including offer of free trial, most refs to own web site Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not the place to advertise. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G4, re-creation) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down (Gravity Kills song)[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article about a song that fails WP:NSONG. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:20, 11 September 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. I find the arguments to keep convincing, but the consensus here appears to be delete. I will userfy upon request. v/r - T P 00:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard J. Brown (Management Consultant)[edit]

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

Suggestion about disambiguation: Howard J. Brown (Sustainable Business Advocate) is probably more accurate and helpful than Howard J. Brown (Management Consultant); if the article survives AfD this new name would be more helpful. -- Lwolberg (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Meets "notable" requirements. I will justify soon.Lwolberg (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article.--Cox wasan (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. For reliable sources, we have citations in major peer-reviewed literature:

Brown's text "Decentralizing Electricity" was one of the earliest works on co-generation and renewable power; it was cited often such as twice in "The energy journal, Volume 5, International Association of Energy Economists, 1984", cited in "Recasting the Machine Age" Village Industries By Howard P. Segal, Univ of Massachusetts Press, cited in Bulletin of science, technology & society, Pergamon Press, 1985, and cited in Harvard Environmental Law Review among many others. Are these notable enough?

Reviews:

The Energy Journal, 1984: http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/book.aspx

Choice: publication of the Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, Volume 21, Issues 1-6. p.838

Public power, Volume 42, American Public Power Association, 1984, p.80, American Public Power Association

(Lwolberg (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Brown's work is archived in Stanford University Archive along with the Fuller archive, see for example Series 17. Media materials, Subseries 1. World Game Studies Workshop (Earth Metabolic Design); Opening lecture, University of Pennsylvania. Also: Presentation by Medard Gabel and Howard Brown.Also Chronofile entries Box 427, Folder 4 Dymaxion Chronofile, Vol. 747, [3 of 7]1980 Nov.-Dec., Chronofile. 1980 Apr. 7 - 1980 Nov. 14. Is being archived by a major university notable?
Brown's consulting work was mostly done under non-disclosure, but he was among the first to promote co-generation of HVAC in plastic bottle production, and human-generated power for a Fortune 500 battery manufacturer--I am checking if these can be disclosed. If they cannot be disclosed, the claims are hard to support, but they are real and important.
Brown has patents, I am seeing how much they were used, cited, etc. Will these bee considered notable?
One of the challenges with Brown is a lifelong tendency to play down his role and elevate those around him; this makes it hard to find his name in publications that he oversaw... I am trying to find some more.

Lwolberg (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even collectively these do not make him notable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep his principal book , Decentralizing electricity production," by Yale University Press, is in over 200 WorldCat libraries,needs a check for substantial published reviews. The mere citations to it does not make it or the author notable. As for the patents, similarly, merely having them is not notable , but they need to be checked for citations to them and for exploitation. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One book in some libraries does not make him meet WP:AUTHOR requirements. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG although I have to say it is very difficult to assess because there appears to be quite a few people with the exact same name and initial on Google search results. Nothing grabbed me as significantly notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Response[edit]

About me- short intro[edit]

I am a relative newbie, this was my first new article. I am an expert in Fuller and his ideas, and I work with Fuller inspired people like Howard J. Brown . My primary objective in wikipedia is to improve Fuller articles such as tensegrity, Cloud nine (tensegrity sphere), and more, and I have experience in objective academic writing. (I will post more about myself to my page after this).

Conflict of Interest[edit]

I announce that I have a WP:COI on this article. This was not clear to me when I set out to post it. The COI is not from any financial arrangement, but due simply to my relationship with Brown which stems from my work on Fuller. I apologize for not fully understanding COI when I started. I gained that understanding while researching answers to the WP people who wrote here, I have learned more and I understand that this COI is serious and needs to be addressed.

However, the COI is subtle, so I detail here its origin and nature:

My best previous WP contribution is a summary paragraph about synergetics. It reads, " Synergetics is the empirical study of systems in transformation, with an emphasis on total system behavior unpredicted by the behavior of any isolated components, including humanity’s role as both participant and observer." This edit has remained over the years.

I begin with that to highlight that I "get" what Wikipedia is about, and want to help on Fuller-related material. It was no easy trick to write this objective summary of Synergetics. I succeeded due to my deep knowledge of Fuller acquired by spending years reading Fuller material and corresponding with fellow Fuller experts. I posted this sentence because other narrow interpretations of synergetics had come to dominate the opening, and no one included the role of the observer, etc.

Relationship to Howard Brown[edit]

Caveat: I am not posting this to share original research, or convince of notability: I am clarifying my COI.

Bottom line: I do research along with Howard Brown, into Fuller-inspired ideas. So entering an article on him seemed natural, as he seems notable yet overlooked to me, for reasons I will outline below.

Details: In the course of my Fuller studies, one expert with whom I developed a relationship is Howard J. Brown. Most Fuller experts that I correspond with are specialists in narrow, complex technical subjects such as polyhedra, tensegrity, or airsteading. Brown is an exception. He focuses on Fuller's concepts as they apply and impact on society and the economy; his approach also leads him to articulate Fuller's ideas in plain English. Driven to deepen my understanding of Fuller's ideas and history I attended courses taught by Brown and maintained extensive correspondence him in a relationship that has been one of teacher and/or colleague. Recently, as a fellow Fuller expert and technical researcher, Brown asked me to research the weight of resources in the framework of Fuller's concept of global resource availability. Fuller proposed what might be called his Sufficiency Axiom: the world has sufficient resources or "life support systems" to support all humanity. In colloquial terms, "there is enough to go around." Brown suggested to me that the truth of this axiom is clearer when business and economic models are coupled with environmental management strategy. He asked me to research details on this, and I did. This research was -- and is -- done in the same open source spirit of Wikipedia, for the mutual benefit of all of us: no money ever changed hands nor was any agenda of self-promotion ever involved in any way.

So I declare my COI, that's it. Phew, I feel better ;-) I have too little experience to know how serious this COI is--I hope it is like any enthusiast posting on a subject in which they are expert--but I assume the worst until told otherwise. Since I declare COI after creating the article, and two days after the first DELETE requests, I voluntarily desist from strongly advocating, I desist from editing the page.

Notable yes/no[edit]

Now I report, not in the spirit of advocating or convincing, but simply to share what I found in response to the delete queries above, I respectfully share here what I found.

Brown is nearly impossible to search for, not only due to his common name as Nipsonanomhmata notes; also, he is a self-effacing person.

Brown is giving a TED talk in October 2011-- TEDx Los Angeles recruited him due to his notable history with Fuller (the same history that attracted me, of course).

http://www.ted.com/tedx/events/3644 -- Lwolberg (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's most notable successes are his two social ventures, World Game and RPM.

World Game is highly notable, no doubt, and Brown made it happen. Brown's role is clearly notable from Medard Gabel) repeated credits in the published works (see for example Ho-Ping). No other independent venture was crafted from Fuller's social ideas and run with constant input from Fuller. Brown and his partner Gabel translated the World Game into an educational program, gaming product and social venture organization that continued for over 35 years; see World Game for more details (though that article needs a serious update).

The notable nature of Brown's book on Fuller's design science is found here--this is like a positive review by an authoritative source--the listing by the official Buckminster Fuller Institute as a top ten significant resource on "the practice and fundamental principles of comprehensive anticipatory design science and its relevance to contemporary global issues and design practice" [List of resources, ] Accessed 12 Sept 2011.

Brown is noted in an independent source as a leader: Wendy Jedlička in her book "Packaging sustainability: tools, systems, and strategies for innovative" lists nine "leaders... in sustainable design". Each has a Wikipedia article--except Brown! Her full list: William McDonough, Medard Gabel, Stewart Brand, Jay Baldwin, Paul MacCready, John Todd (biologist), Hunter Lovins, Amory Lovins. See page 135, Google books.

The noteworthiness of Brown's 2nd venture RPM is hard to detect in conventional methods, as most of its work was done under contract and credited to its customers. Two exceptions:

Duracell did take the unusual step of publishing its work with Brown as "Total Environmental Quality Management" in Total Quality Review v4 n3 July/August 1994.
Connecticut Business News Journal in 1999 noted RPM's work in sustainability (note the early date!), quoting Brown's employee Gregor Barnum, now Director of Corporate Consciousness for Seventh Generation. (http://www.conntact.com/archive_index/archive_pages/2386_Business_New_Haven.html)

The notability of RPM is hard to catch--there was no cover on Fortune magazine when this small firm was purchased by RETEC of Thermo Electron Corporation. But that acquisition itself is a sign of RPM's noteworthiness, as small management consulting firms are typically not bought out in this way. There is a saying, a consultancy is worth only the value of its copy machines, meaning that it is the people and not the firm that count; but in the notable case of RPM it is the firm and its strategies for increasing resource performance while aligning environment and business needs that was acquired.

Brown's teaching at Yale University Architecture and Planning school is noted as an influence on Harold Linton, Director School of Art College of Visual and Performing Arts George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. [Accessed 12 Sept 2011]. Brown's teaching at Wesleyan University is noted by the university's official website as critical to the innovative Science in Society Program [40].

Thanks[edit]

'Nuff said, please forgive me for learning as I go along.

Coda: Brown's article should have inbound links from relevant paragraphs from the articles on Buckminster Fuller, Medard Gabel, Environmental Management, and more, but now with my COI I am not sure I can make those links--if the article remains.

Thanks for all your efforts, hope this post is appropriate and helps! -- Lwolberg (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete longwinded desperate attempts to justify articles only emphasize clear WP:COI issues. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Williams (Australian writer)[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals. Neelix (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of an entire book, for starters. Her Supreme Court case made international headlines: [41] Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Zagalejo. A whole book about her is impressive. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having an entire book about her from an independent publisher shows she clearly meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gas implementation[edit]

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

This is but a WP:DICDEF since its creation in 2009. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible WP:NEO. -- 202.124.74.174 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Mosque Cares. v/r - T P 00:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace D. Mohammed II[edit]

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

No reliable sources state that this individual is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mosque Cares and maybe expand a bit within that article for lack of independent RS for a BLP to stand alone. The closest RS I could find was this and that could be pushing it. Everything else seemed to be blogs and such. Maybe someone could expand upon this. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Pudge MclameO, while it lacks a notable topic/individual's significance to have an Encyclopedic page. The current state just shouts out-loud, "so what?". ~ AdvertAdam^talk 09:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show and Prove[edit]

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

Album has sold maybe 10,000 copies; fails any notability test I can think of. Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never listened to the guy, but I recognized the name and went to the last.fm album page--1.8 milion song listens, 500,000+ listeners. Updated the page to reflect that. I have no idea what percentage of song plays find their way into last.fm, but suggests to me an audience in the millions. Currently album is "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #6,395 Paid in MP3", for whatever that's worth. Seems notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Always look through the Google news archive results before nominating something. Search for the album name and the rapper as well, and you'll find results. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette gave him three and a half stars. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06278/727439-42.stm Dream Focus 03:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUMS. Early album by an artist who had a #1 single last year and a #2 album this year. See Wiz Khalifa discography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This album page seems to easily pass the notability guidelines. It the debut album of the high-profile musician Wiz Khalifa, and not a, say, label-free demo or an unreleased album. It was released through Rostrum Records, which appears to be a notable label. Also, the notability guidelines for albums do not appear to be concerned with album sales, and is instead concerned about how the album was released and who made the album and stuff like that. An album could sell 40 copies after one year, yet if the album is by a band signed to, for example, Napalm Records, then I believe that the album would still deserve a Wikipedia article. I haven't come across an album guideline which states that an album needs to sell x amount in order to be notable enough on Wikipedia. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 September 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. I dont consider myself involved, but ping me if you think I am. As the page creator agrees that consensus is reached to delete, this can almost be G7. Per calls to speedy close per WP:SNOW, I'm going to be bold here. v/r - T P 15:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Gonzalez (politician)[edit]

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

Promotional, maybe even G11, fails WP:Politician, what coverage exists relates to the election. Mt king ^(edits) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the author, and I made a point to make it not promotional. I did not include any of the election platform or the issues he is running on, so that it would not look like campaign spam, therefore it does not meet WP:G11 criteria for spam. As for WP:Politician - he has received considerable mainstream press recently: New York Times, New York Daily News, El Diario, the Village Voice... All well-known news media outlets, that together more than meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" requirement. JesseRafe (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, specifically part 3. Article and sources (taking out the blog sources and his own personal campaign site) seem to be dealing with the election and campaign. This would indicate that the election or campaign could possibly have an article and this could be redirected or merged into that article. There is definitely promotional material, albeit AGF accidental, in the second large section. It is entirely about who is supporting his campaign and what organizations are endorsing him. This is promotional fluff with no information on what impacts him, or what he is impacting, etc etc. This gives us a lack for criteria met to have a BLP on this subject. This is not encyclopedic and does not indicate notability in either respect. Perhaps in the future if he wins the seat he will affect things and warrant more coverage. But as it stands I do not see this subject meeting Wiki criteria for inclusion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, the endorsements could be seen as being promotional, but I guess we have a different idea of what kind of content is purely promotional versus also being informative. I only added the endorsements as a way of providing more notability -- I didn't include every Tom, Dick and Jane who supported him, but just established entities and people with wikipedia articles. Perhaps editing the section is the solution rather than deleting the article wholesale. If the references to the other politicians and labor unions were removed and the newspapers remained, would that be less promotional (i.e. politicians and interest groups clearly have agendas, whereas newspapers (to a degree) are more objective in their assessment and the views of newspapers are more "newsworthy" and notable than those of pols)? JesseRafe (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources cover him specifically, they're all talking about the election and campaign and long standing convention in these cases is merge and redirect to the election article if one exists and delete if it doesn't. Valenciano (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the Times article doesn't mention him exclusively, but the Village Voice, the Daily News and the El Diario articles are expressly about him, I just included the Times because it's still basically the paragon of print journalism, and mentions therein add to notability (in my opinion). JesseRafe (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eight refs. The third, seventh and eighth aren't about him. The sixth is his campaign website, so automatically half the refs can be ignored when considering notability. The fourth and fifth are newspaper endorsements, viz: "His election could pave the way for fresh representation of our communities. We back Gonzalez’s bid." Does such sycophancy (basically a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own) establish notability? I'd say no. Either way those two simply cover him in the context of the campaign. Per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate for office is not notable and thus coverage purely in the context of a campaign also does not make someone notable. The New York Times article isn't about him. It's about the election. The Village Voice one incidentally is a blog and this its reliability is questionable. We're therefore left with no sources covering him in any depth, therefore delete. Valenciano (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! I don't know if there is an actual Wikipedia Policy to cite, but I should think "Don't be racist" would be one of them. As if the comment "a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own" weren't prima facie racist on its own, it's doubly ignorant because the other two candidates are Hispanic themselves. How can this vote be taken seriously with such an ignorant blatant racist such as yourself? It's really hard to be civil in response to this. Also, learn to count and read. There are not eight references, but six. And I never said every single reference was about him. The ones that aren't about him are in the article as references to the facts to which they immediately follow, i.e. his opponents. I clearly stated in my response to you which specific references were expressly about him, as not all of them were. And the article clearly states in the text which papers endorsed him and which mentioned him in articles. I am sorry for being a little uncouth in my response to you, but really? It's 2011! "[A] Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own"!!! Unbelievable, you disgust me. JesseRafe (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me an ignorant blatant racist is certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I'd strongly suggest that you strike or withdraw that comment. Before you speak of ignorance, you might want to have a read of the Hispanic article: "Contrary to many beliefs, Hispanic is not a race, as the Chilean Nobel Prize Gabriela Mistral once said, "mi patria es mi lengua." The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other SPANISH or PORTUGUESE culture or origin, regardless of race."

Your attacks on me are hardly worth replying to but I will say that I would have thought that my user name might give you some clue as to where I live (hint: third largest city in Spain) so it's not very sensible to accuse me of some kind of anti-Spanish agenda. Hell I've probably written more articles about Spanish politics and the like than anyone on here. I stand completely by my comments by the way, if a newspaper called the "Voice of Canadians in New York" endorsed a Canadian candidate for a seat, I definitely would be sceptical of the notability that that confers on the candidate, being mindful of WP:POLITICIAN. Incidentally, yes there are 8 refs in the article, they're even helpfully numbered one to eight at the bottom. I'll repeat, since you preferred to go off on an ill advised straw man personal attack rather than address my points, two of them are endorsements of him, worth mentioning in an article about the election yes, but not sufficient for a separate article. The New York Times is an article about the campaign, with the Village voice one in a blog and therefore of questionable worth. No suitable refs = delete. Valenciano (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I called you out on being racist (which is a generic term to include being prejudiced to ethnicities as well, as the term "ethnicist" has no usage that I'm aware of, and also is often extended to those who are prejudiced against others based on national origin). And I said it was hard to be civil to you, because you're clearly guilty of bigotry saying it's no surprise "a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own" when I pointed out (much to your ignorance because you didn't even look into the other candidates before coming to a racially-motivated and dismissive conclusion without considering the merits of one's candidacy and the motives behind a newspaper's endorsement) that Gonzalez's two opponents are also Hispanic (both Dominican), so why did El Diario not endorse them (it couldn't be because of something as irrelevant as the issues, now could it?. Also, yes, I know what Valencia is. It's in Spain. When did I say anything about Spain or Spaniards? Also, even if you do consider yourself to be a Latino or Hispanic in addition to a Spaniard, Valencian, Catalonian or whatever, that in no way then means that by default you can't be racist against them, ever heard of a self-loather? I referred to you as being a racist with regards to Latinos, something that I know first-hand exists in Spain (I've lived in Barca for a while and have seen how dark-skinned Mexicans are treated and looked-down upon there). As a Spaniard you should be well-aware of the distinction between "Spanish" and "Hispanic" and "Latino". Again, read what I write and don't jump to conclusion to justify your bigotry. JesseRafe (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no bigotry in his comment and your own response is incoherent, since you assume that skin-pigmentation is somehow necessarily involved, which is wholly without foundation, either as an explanation for the newspaper's endorsement or for Valenciano's comment. You really ought to withdraw these accusations. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse, as I've already asked you to drop these ill advised and unfounded accusations against me and you persist, I've opened up an ANI thread as I don't see the point in dealing with Have you stopped beating your wife? style arguments. I'll simply reiterate that a newspaper endorsement is grounds for inclusion in the relevant election article, not grounds for a separate article about a candidate. Valenciano (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna have to agree with these guys here, Jesse. Please peruse WP:RS, and especially WP:NEWSORG for guidance on reliable sources. Promotional items, whether in a newspaper or otherwise, are of extremely limited value in WP, and by their nature are apt to be misleading in terms of establishing notability. You need to retract the above statement and apologize to Valenciano for WP:UNCIVIL. Calling into question the neutrality of a news organization in establishing notability is extremely pertinent and valuable in discussions about political candidates, as per WP:POLITICIAN. Van Isaac_WS 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because none of the editors who have voted for deletion have responded to the constructive suggestions for reasons behind the inclusion of some of the material, or the actual merits of some of the sources, I hope that a tally for consensus is not made just on these votes alone, until more editors get a chance to weigh in, or these editors take the time to respond. JesseRafe (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the nomination the text as it stands does nothing but promote him and would need a fundamental re-write to meet guidelines IMO, however I am going to wait till the outcome of the election tomorrow before commenting more, he may well meet WP:Politician then. Mt king ^(edits) 23:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable candidate; coverage is about the election, not the candidate. I might well vote for the guy if I lived in his district, but the article clearly continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. The candidate is so far not notable. Nothing in the article suggests that has established notability independently of the election itself. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't seem like a good idea to nominate an article about a candidate for deletion with less than a week to go before the election which, if the candidate wins, would guarantee his notability under WP:POLITICIAN. As the polls have now closed, I will wait for the results before offering an opinion as to the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for result of election if he wins, then speedy keep as per WP:POLITICIAN (ie disregard all delete !votes as made invalid and premature) if he wins, if he loses, thendelete as not independently notable. --Cerejota (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New York Times is reporting here that he failed to win and it was won by Rafael Espinal. Mt king ^(edits) 05:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jesus Gonzalez lost, fails notability. Question: can a deleted article be "revived" later with the content, formatting, and extant links brought back intact to be expanded upon later? Or would it have to be begun again from scratch if Mr. Gonzalez became more notable? JesseRafe (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject has failed to achieve notability yet. In response to JesseRafe, the deleted article can be restored with its prior content at a later date. This may require a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but if the subject's notability becomes clear at a later date, the request will merely be a formality. Or if the subject's notability improves but is still in doubt, the page can be userfied to allow someone to work on it in their user space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me the link to how to do that on my talk page? I know Mr. Gonzalez is gonna run again for City Council or something like that, and I wouldn't mind being able to save the 30 or so minutes it took to throw this all together, categories, infobox stuff and everything. It'd be great to have that in my user-space and be able to recall it later. Hopefully we can still do it while the data on JG(P) is still raw and not archived. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to save a copy of the wiki-text as a file on your computer (I was going to e-mail it to you but you don't have a e-mail link) as keeping of articles in user space in case they run again is not a good idea, they end up looking like a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mt king ^(edits) 05:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How delightfully low-tech. Done. And thank you. I think consensus has been overwhelmingly reached on the merits of this article per G11 and WP:Politician. I already wrote the bare bones for the page of the victor, Rafael Espinal. Since I don't like that guy that much, I'm not gonna spend as much time drussing it up with links yet, (though everything there is accurate, and the references are good) but if any of you here see it come across an AfD, please vote keep. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Change to Delete, I misunderstood certian factors. Sorry) - We should not discount regional notability, supported by independent sources based on notability standards we expect within our own region. It is quite possible, and sources substantiate the subject of this article is considered notable within their own geographic region. Including an article, which is fully verifiable, only enhances this composite of knowledge we call Wikipedia. Judging a subjects notability by what be expect regionally, imposes our own bias upon standards which are acceptable in other parts of the world. My76Strat (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well what sources do you have then ? Mt king ^(edits) 06:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally have to go to bed but here are some more sources:

A lot of background info here (though it is about the campaign) in this interview, http://bushwickbk.com/2011/06/29/qa-with-assembly-candidate-jesus-gonzalez/
An interview from 11 years ago here, proving he's no johnny-come-lately, as well as other references to his radio show and excerpts and abstracts from 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009 http://www.wnyc.org/people/jesus-gonzalez/

Just linking them here for others to look at should they choose, don't have time to synthesize them with the article now. JesseRafe (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets WP:GNG in it's current form. To suggest otherwise is to impose a standard higher than what is already established as sufficient. I call on the nominator to retract this nomination, and return it to normal editing standards. With speed! My76Strat (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I don't see any coverage outside that of the election context so WP:BLP1E applies when it says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. so I still stand by the nom. Mt king ^(edits) 07:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I am looking for sources beyond this single event to hopefully satisfy BLP1E, which I agree is a factor. I suspect there exists some reference related to involvement as a community organizer which can break the bounds of single event coverage. Furthermore, if it is found that the subject does not qualify for an article at this time, I favor honoring the request to have its contents userfied for improvement and republishing at a later date if and when the subject rises to sufficient prominence. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source from 2009 which discusses the subject in context completely separate from the 54th election. I think it is clear that this subject surpasses the limitations of a BLP1E. My76Strat (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err... No not significant. Mt king ^(edits) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. I was under the impression he won or was expected to win, which I see he did not. I tried. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Look, why don't I save you some time, I am unlikely to change my mind on this for the simple fact that if there was anything out there that this guy was notable for (other than running in the election) then his campaign would have made the most of it and you would not have to look any further than his very own campaign website for all the links. Put your self in the campaign managers shoes for a moment, if it existed you would shout it from the roof top. But a look at the Our Candidate page of the website makes no real claims to notability, in fact if you posted that page as a WP page it would get deleted as A7.Mt king ^(edits) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: precedent makes clear that unsuccessful candidates for political office are not inherently notable. There doesn't appear to be anything non-political that this guy is notable for either. --Lincolnite (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the objective measure that if the election is not suitably notable or cared about enough for an article on its own, only the independently notable participants in it should have an article. Seeing as how there is not, at present, an article on the special election for the 54th state district, only those participating in it who are independently notable should have articles, and Gonzalez does not qualify. Losing an election does not in itself make on notable, and I see nothing else in the article that indicates notability. --Golbez (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much a SNOW, The creator understands and agrees! I move for an administrator to close this discussion and follow the unanimous recommendation for deletion. My76Strat (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakkasalem[edit]

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

Lack of high-quality sources. The subject's notability is typified by the absence of an Indian article. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a verified populated place: in addition to the reference in the article, it's listed in the National Panchayat Directory, and other sources which verify its existence can be easily found (just Google the name). Per AfD precedent, all verifiable populated places are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom Morris. Looks like a town to me. Verified populated settlement.--Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Giberti[edit]

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

Deleted per WP:N at French wiki. Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:36, 29 August 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, 4 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absense of high-quality sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Monsieur Giberti is the mayor of Gémenos (evidence) and former conseiller général of Bouches-du-Rhône (evidence), which passes WP:POLITICIAN. Additional sources such as this and this are more than sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. The "discussion" on fr.wiki was simply an unopposed call for deletion, equivalent to a PROD on en.wiki, although it was correct by fr.wiki standards because they have different notability rules from us.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Several sources listed above, (that I checked) pass Notability for people criterion. Furthermore, topic passes WP:POLITICIAN, specifically, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Also, per the nomination's wording, the AfD at the French Wikipedia does not correspond with this AfD for English Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and uniforms of the Cleveland Browns[edit]

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

Is essentially a gallery of non-free images, a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC ViperSnake151 Talk 01:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question that these images are all non-free. I see only four that are unequivocally copyrightable: the two elf drawings, the bulldog head, and the B in the football. The rest are all text-only logos, or generic helmet or uniform outlines used to show simple (and uncopyrightable) colors and stripes. I see that they are all tagged with NFUR, but that may have been from an excess of caution or simple ignorance; coloring a helmet orange and putting a stripe on it certainly isn't copyrightable. Unless the helmet or uniform drawings are actually non-free instead of user-generated, which we don't have a cause to use when we can draw or photograph a helmet or uniform ourselves. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the problem? The text provides enough context without the images and, as User:Postdlf notes, a user-created image of a plain orange helmet does not meet the threshold of originality and is not a non-free image. — AjaxSmack 01:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of a series of articles, and it splits material out from the team's fairly long main article. Some of the text at Cleveland Browns#Logos and uniforms should probably be moved here. - Eureka Lott 13:07, 7 September 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, 11 September 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 WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE v/r - T P 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sarmast[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is about an author with another in the long line of fringe theories about Atlantis that is not taken seriously by the scientific/historical scholarly community. Other than his personal web site, there is no evidence that the usefulness of his work extends beyond his own writings. --Taivo (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant keep Looking at the Google News hits, he has certainly received significant coverage over several years in a large number of sources that are independent of the subject and that are usually regarded as reliable by Wikipedians, so he seems to pass WP:GNG quite handily. Whether on not he should do so is quite a different question. PWilkinson (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as a WP:Attack page. Most of the content is criticism. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 7 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, has certainly received plenty of coverage. I also disagree that this constitutes an WP:Attack page--there is no disparaging or threatening language at all, that I can see; merely an admirably neutral-toned presentation and footnoting of the arguments against the subject's interpretations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:28, 11 September 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 Soundboy Rock. v/r - T P 00:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Sweet Sound[edit]

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

Song is not notable and the article does not cite any references. It has not received significant coverage in my opinion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it has. — AjaxSmack 01:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where please? 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's just my opinion. — AjaxSmack 11:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay then :). I like Groove Armada, although like I said I don't think the article meets WP:MUSIC 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 7 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soundboy Rock, the parent album, as per WP:NSONGS. Although this song did chart on the U.S. Billboard Dance Airplay chart, I can find no significant coverage for the song in reliable sources; the chart placement is already covered in the discography section of the group's main article. Gongshow ^Talk 02:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playground 52[edit]

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

Serious lack of notability. It's a playground. And that's all the text says about it. Probably speediable, but thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt just in case there's something worth keeping about it. Grutness...wha? 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full confessions: I created this stub). There's no doubt that this is not the most important park in the Bronx, nor the most exciting article. That said, the park is notable enough to get an article about it in the NY Times (cited in the article), mention on some music website (http://www.reverbnation.com/venue/8--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)08514), an arts website (http://www.placematters.net/node/976) and a few checkins on foursquare (https://foursquare.com/venue/18591302). I think that (just barely) meets Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline. Might make sense to rename this to be 52 Park. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- OK - I'll do you a deal :) As it stands it looks completely non-notable, and if it stays that way it would be deletable. - but if you can add something to the article to make it look notable, I'll withdraw the nom. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I did a little work. If I can find something more that's worth adding, I will. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 9 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It just doesn't seem notable, and the lack of content on the page just seems to emphasize that fact. Sorry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from Nowhere (comic)[edit]

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

A non notable comic story without reliable or sufficent souces per WP:RS or sufficent evidence why its notable per WP:NOTE. Therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 7 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough.--Xyz or die (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence to presume that the comic meets general notability guideline to merit having a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Moon Mystery[edit]

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

A non notable comic story without reliable or sufficent souces per WP:RS or sufficent evidence why its notable per WP:NOTE. Therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 7 September 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, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The comic does not meet the general notability guideline to deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:13, 14 September 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.