< 15 September	17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Azerbaijan (political concept)[edit]

According to google books, Notability cannot be established. Probably this concept/name is Original research.

Yeraz + "Western Azerbaijan" (all language) - 0
Yeraz + "Qərbi Azərbaycan" (all language) - 0
irredentism "Western Azerbaijan" - 5, but all of them are irrelevant.

Sources that was used in the article, have no direct relation with "Western Azerbaijan (political concept)". So sources don't prove notability of "Western Azerbaijan (political concept)".

Takabeg (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This delete nomination is ungrounded. If you cant find the name in google books it doesnt mean you can nominate an article for deletion. This article has plenty of sources but it doesnt suit Takabeg's personal view, however that is not an argument for deletion. But even your argument regarding the sources do not stand. Why are you even searching for Yeraz? "Western Azerbaijan" has plenty of academic sources - 1600 to be exact. Also search Armenia "Western Azerbaijan" - this show you additional sources. For example this source on page 30 mentions: "Western Azerbaijan to eastern Turkey, including many Armenian regions." Neftchi (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a source that you mentioned this one (Lonely Planet) ? Takabeg (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You havent addressed my arguments. The fact remains that you cant just nominate an article for deletion for its title. The lead clearly says its a political concept used in Azerbaijan, as can be seen in various official Azerbaijani sources: [1], [2], etc. So its not original research but a phrase used in Azerbaijan even by its officials. Aside that the body text has plenty of sources and you just want to throw everything in the bin. Thats against Wiki regulations, so consider this a warning. Neftchi (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was nominated for a deletion before in October 2010 and it was declined. So this second nomination really has no ground. See here for the earlier declination. Neftchi (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was kept after prior deletion proposal, as mentioned above, so no ground for renomination. And there are sufficient sources to establish the geographical application. Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have little doubt that such an irredentist concept exists in some circles in Azerbaijan but the point is that we no reliable source to talk about it in detail. Instead, what most of this article tries to do is justify the use of such a term on the basis of history and demographics - we have no real works written by political scientists to explain, for example, where this theory cropped up from and how great a support it has in Azerbaijan. Unless some are introduced, this article should be deleted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources use this term in the context of being a political and geographic concept: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's also worthy to note that the previous AfD for this article resulted in "Speedy keep". Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those above examples refer to the political concept of Western Azerbaijan, and in some cases they aare referring to province of West Azerbaijan in modern Iran. The "speedy keep" was a result of many editors not knowing what this article was purportedly about - an actual geographic term, an irredentist term, etc. Now that we have a better idea of what it is but lack the sources to support it, its deletion can be considered anew.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article are sufficiently giving a reason for Keep. Western Azerbaijan is a political concept as the article title points out already. I don't understand why these nominating editors dispute that. The term is widely used. So, keep. Ladytimide (talk) 17:09, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Artsakh[edit]

According to google books, Notability cannot be established.

"Northern Artsakh" -Llc 9

This article consists of information that has no direct relations with "Northern Artsakh". Sources information can be transferred to related article (for example Nagorno-Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast etc.) Takabeg (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you read more carefully, it's mentions Shahumyan and Getashen (Khanlar) districst as Northern Artsakh. Also, please read the description of "Northern Artsakh":

...is a political concept used in the Republic of Armenia to refer the region in north-western Azerbaijan, lying north of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (Mountainous Artsakh) and between the Kura river and the border of the Republic of Armenia, which had a significant Armenian population from antiquity up to the 1987-1992, when Nagorno-Karabakh conflict broke out.

I mean that it obviously says that it is used by Armenians. I don't try to show any neutrality (except the ethnic tables), because it isn't neutral. It is just a point of view from Armenian side without hiding it. I don't see any problem with this. This article just shows the point of view of Armenian to the region. That's all. --Yerevanci (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a number of English-language newspaper articles on Google that refer to "northern Artsakh" and "Northern Artsakh" which qualify as WP:RS. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - English-language newspaper articles on Google refer to "northern Artsakh" and "Northern Artsakh". See also: [*Samvel Karapetyan, Northern Artsakh, Yerevan: Gitutiun Publishing House, 2004 (re-published in 2007, ISBN 5808006775) - [7]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:08, 21 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, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boliven[edit]

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

No independent sources. No indication or sign of notability. Speedy deleted on two previous occasions. Third speedy contested so afd-ing. Also, while not a reason to delete, all significant contributors appear to be SPAs promoting Boliven and its parent company, Cambridge IP. GDallimore (Talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure vanispamcruftisement with nothing but self-published sources (mostly the subject's own website) for "references" … lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:WEB or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
delete — may i propose that if articles on search engines are to be kept, they should at a minimum give some results on themselves? if you can't do SEO when you own your own SE, why even bother? there's nothing on real search engines either, except articles in german on bolivia written by people who can't spell bolivien, so fails all possible notability guidelines. it's cute how they explain what their "advanced search" function does, though. it allows "fuzzy"! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have just added two independent sources, but I could not find anything providing a significant coverage, i.e. providing "more than a trivial mention" (Wikipedia:Notability, General notability guideline). I would have expected more occurrences if the database or the service was notable. There is also a recent IEEE paper mentioning Boliven, see [8] and [9] (Sheikh, Nasir et al, "Forecasting of advanced electronic packaging technologies using bibliometric analysis and Fisher-Pry diffusion model", Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11, July-Aug. 2011). I couldn't fully read it, but I suspect it includes only a trivial mention as well. --Edcolins (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Hello, thank you for your contributions and comments. We have added some additional independent sources. Could you let me know if we should make 'notability' explicit in the article (it may sound like advertising if we state facts in support of 'notability' - e.g. Boliven is one of the largest collections of science literature online, has more than 30,000 users, rapidly growing user base, etc, I'm trying to avoid making this type of statement?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariana Hudecova (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might need to read this policy and the associated explanations of what "reliable" and "independent" mean. GDallimore (Talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mariana Hudecova, please could you also take a moment to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as I mentioned on your talk page and here. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'd like to add some support for this page. I believe it will add signficantly to the "sum of human knowledge" by providing a review of one of many business intelligence search tools that can be readily accessed by the public. Innography already have a wiki page and I am sure more will follow. The Intellectual Property community do have access to a private wiki (see http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/Main_Page) but I would prefer to see one develop as part of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community will by its nature ensure that content is unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ip phil (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've gone through innography and removed the obviously unreliable sources and self-promotion based on press releases, but think it just about complies with the notability guidelines. Perhaps someone else would care to take a second look. GDallimore (Talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for this - I agree. I would like to see all the articles associated with 'Patent search services' or 'Business intelligence companies' being of a common standard so that the public are well informed of these valuable services. Boliven seems to me to have some good search and display methods not found on the more popular Espacenet service.Ip phil (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am usually an advocate for inclusion. I conducted searches of the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Business Journal (there is an office in Boston), the Cambridge University Reporter, Cambridge News, The Spectator, Financial Times, The Times and The Guardian. The only results were against "cambridgeip" in the Business Section of Cambridge News. There is the potential for an article about CambridgeIP with a section devoted to Boliven, but I do not think that a stand alone article on Boliven is warranted at this time. The citations provided support verifiability, but not notability. For instance, the BusinessWeek citation supports notability of the CEO, but verifiability of the company. It would be very useful to understand the nature of the French language citation, whether it supports notability or only verifiability. Thanks if someone can ascertain that. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SB.TV[edit]

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

Extremely spammy article which reads like an overindulgent press release. Subject might be notable but I'm not seeing anything worth keeping here. Discussions with primary (pretty much only) contributor are not going well, this editor sees nothing wrong with the article. RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the information presented. It is clearly a successful company, and no-one can say that anything is false on the article. I heavily despise this delete-and-discard ritual of Wikipedians these days, really exemplifying what seems to be a cybernetic sloth of which doesn't correspond with the speed at which I attain replies on my talk page. It doesn't take much time to rewrite this article if it's so 'promoted.' --TDW ✉ 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's just as slothful when people say "Keep but add improving", but none of the 40 people who say it get around to, you know, ACTUALLY IMPROVING THE DAMN ARTICLE. Pot, meet kettle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point but I despise Wikipedia being used purely as a promotional vehicle. This article should be deleted without prejudice towards starting over from a nuetral point of view.--RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point, somehow a discarding cyber culture has arisen on Wikipedia whereby moderators/administrators such as yourself don't care for anything to actually be added to the encyclopedia. SB.TV exists, the references give enough evidence of that. Now I may be an amateurish editor when I can't see an entire article as an advert, but I at least tried to amend what I saw that was promotional. It is not your only job to state what needs deleting and what doesn't. Can you not help an inferior Wikipedian out? P.S. The final (usually compulsory) resort of subpaging or putting the article into the incubator does not help, I see very few articles that actually 'hatch' somewhat into a fully-fledged one. --TDW ✉ 10:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources in the article that establish notability of the topic. Also, There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. The article shouldn't have been nominated for AfD in the first place. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:12, 21 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 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trio GUD[edit]

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

Although there are various claims to notability, I have so far been unable to find sources to back them up, and I certainly have found no evidence of them having received any significant, secondary source coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to support WP:BAND or even WP:GNG … pure WP:VSCA. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - Per Nominator. --Noleander (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked up the TEMSIG competition, which seems to be the biggest thing on their resume. Yes, there is a piano trio division in this small national youth competition (Slovenian population similar to that of greater Kansas City). I could not actually find them in listed in the 2011 results section, though (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTEMSIG%2B2011%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D888%26prmd%3Dimvns&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=sl&u=http://temsig.si/upload/komorne_skupine_1.pdf&usg=ALkJrhg5_Jm7uSfcm7XvbpukJRjVQB8Qng). And even if article's claims were respectably sourced, they paint a clear picture to me of a group that has clearly not yet achieved notability. Hopefully, they have the talent and will--someday. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GNG.Racconish^Tk 13:53, 20 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 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for the abolition of meat[edit]

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

Pure original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Also spamming (see [10]). --viniciusmc 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Translation of the French article (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_pour_l%27abolition_de_la_viande) on wikipedia (and spam is publicity : nothing other... nothing to buy with this article! and “The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists” : it is not the case ! The censorship is not encyclopaedic either)--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Self-published sources, such as the group's own website and press releases, do not establish notability. An article which does not mention the group but just describes some sort of anti-meat protest does not establish notability either. Also, Wikipedia is not for publicity or promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending more content and references. Nomming an article for AfD on the same day that it is created is simply ridiculous. Give the guy a chance to actually finish it for goodness sake. Deterence ^Talk 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR and spam (on an extraordinary multi-project scale resulting in blocks on Danish and Swedish WPs). Yes, it's a direct translation of the French article, but that article would also be considered OR and spam under English Wikipedia standards. Delete in its entirety. Not very likely that this will ever develop into a full-fledged article. The material that would be added in the future would be more useful if added to other articles on vegetarianism and animal rights rather than in a stand-alone article of this scope. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and user:dominus. Promotion of a not independently notable movement.Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until the movement gets covered in secondary sources it does not meet WP's notability standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Animal rights movement. Appears to be a legitimate, tho small, group based in France. Okay to delete article, but move the content into Animal rights movement first. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Noleander. It might be worth a brief mention in the ARM article but it certainly doesn't need its own article at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete No credible references used, no mention of the extent of this movement so no notability. This article is part of a massive spamming campaign on wikipedia, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/meat-abolition.org for the spam log. The (external) link that was abused has been globally blacklisted. EdBever (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect without merge - No sources establish notability. There are not even RSs that qualify the group any mention in other articles. Still, judging from this group's activism, they may be satisfied (or at least confused enough to not bother) if the article about their generically named group redirected to Animal rights movement, Vegetarianism, or something else, and the redirect page was locked like a virgin's panties in the Crusades. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bordering on spam, there is nothing to merge, because its content is basically sourced by one group's public relations website. The one reliable source, an article in Le Monde, is about how difficult it is for the movement to get any traction; basically it says it's not notable, but its advocates are trying to make it so (your translation may differ). See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. The Google literal translation of the title is "To speak of abolition of meat remains very difficult", but I stand by my summary of the article. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 20 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 as unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11).

PopimsCode[edit]

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

Looks like a fine page, until you begin drilling down into Google a bit and realize that the sum total of information on this reputed technology is Wikipedia and the official website. Well-crafted vanity/self-promotion? Also, I realize it's a little odd for an otherwise inactive editor to nominate a page for deletion, but I was doing some research on barcodes and stumbled across this. humblefool ® 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the user who created the page just happens to have the same name as the gentleman to whom the patent is reputedly pending. humblefool ® 21:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTRS. Alex^{discussion ★} 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but vanispamcruftisement with serious WP:COI issues … lacking WP:RS to support WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: Non-registered users should not vote. Alex^{discussion ★} 18:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Editors should be logged-in users and my own Talk page … I"ve been here for over five years … how about you? — 70.21.12.213 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would ask you to use your account in voting, if it's not problem (so everybody know who you are)? Alex^{discussion ★} 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Off topic: Speaking as another long-time anon who doesn't use an account any more (in order to protect my own sanity), there has never been a rule against anons contributing to discussion. And more importantly, this is not a vote. 86.164.110.80 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Alex thinks, contributions to AfD discussions are equally valid be they from registered or unregistered editors. If anyone thinks that the policy on this should be changed then they are free to start a discussion on the issue, but this is not the place for such a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 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. No one proposing deletion aside from the nominator. Editors have offered multiple sources addressing the topic of "action hero". Article will benefit from expansion. (non-admin closure) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action hero[edit]

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

Dicdef. No way to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.5 "nominations which are so erroneous...". It is blatantly obvious that that topic can be expanded because numerous books have been written about action heroes, including:

The action hero in popular Hollywood and Hong Kong movies
Man-of-action heroes: how the American ideology of manhood structures men's consumption
Gender schema theory and the tough female action-hero
Super bitches and action babes: the female hero in popular cinema
The female action hero in film
Cartooning action heroes
The Action Hero Handbook
The Real Action Hero Manual
Female action heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television
Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero

Warden (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I don't know about a speedy. It seems clear to me this is a notable concept, though, however stubby the current article is. Powers ^T 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty can be done to improve this article. Notability does not seem to be an issue. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep — per warden. esp note this search from warden's item 10. it is clear that this is a rich concept and should be kept. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate high-level topic that can encompass various forms of media (and basically not being limited to action film). Google Scholar Search shows this for example. Here is something for television. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice my own results listed among Warden's. The ones I mentioned were non-film on purpose since the term can be tied to action films. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith nom, just wrong. Keep - much can be written on the topic. Please try again, 10-lb. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - See this for starters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:37, 21 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sayas[edit]

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

unclear claim of notability. the one valid reference is about Albert Gonzalez. CutOffTies (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … the only "reference" provided is a ((Dead link)). Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - Almost a speedy as only claim of importance is that they were able to "hack into computer systems of the government of Pakistan". At any rate, weak claim is unsubstantiated and I was not able to find any sources on the subject, let alone any backing this claim up. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:15, 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 15 (Buckcherry album). (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next 2 You (Buckcherry song)[edit]

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

No other useful content than what can be found at the band, album, or discography page. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge&Redir - into 15 (Buckcherry album). 2 sentences do not make an Article (Lack of content). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 15 (Buckcherry album) as per above. Rcsprinter (talk) 13:18, 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. v/r - T P 23:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Package Manager[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to support WP:GNG … just links to the subject's own website. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{02:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete as blatant advertisement. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:05, 23 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 Clem Chambers. v/r - T P 23:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Twain Maxim[edit]

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

WP:NN fiction created by a WP:SPA editor bent on promoting the author. The only review (and not much of one) I found is this. Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Armageddon Trade‎

Delete, WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books says "We haven't found any reviews in the usual places." Amazon says it's not ranked in their top 10 million books by sales. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, no indication of critical reception or commentary in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to our article on the author, Clem Chambers, who does seem to have some notability. --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 22 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 Clem Chambers. v/r - T P 23:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Armageddon Trade[edit]

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

Wp:NN fiction, failing WP:NB, created by a COI editor whose edits revolve around promoting the author Clem Chambers. The only thing resembling a decent review I could find is here here and here. Related AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Twain Maxim Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also a minor writeup in the Daily Mail but not substantial, and with the lack of any other significant coverage, not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to our article on the author, Clem Chambers, who does seem to have some notability. --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Stellar and the Ubuntu Song[edit]

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

Walled garden of articles about a novel and various characters and fictional elements within it, with no properly sourced evidence of notability given (the articles' only "references" are to each other, and even the writer doesn't have an article.) Prod notice removed by creator with no compelling new evidence of notability provided. And even if such sources could be added to demonstrate sufficient notability, I'd still be unclear as to why we needed a separate article about each of these topics instead of a single one about the novel itself. Delete all if real references aren't forthcoming; merge subtopics to one article about the novel if they are. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, WP:SPAM.--Cox wasan (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Google books does not find at all. Plain old Google search finds few results, none RS that I can tell. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as SPAM for a product with no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 19 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 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Episcopia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Episcopia (3rd nomination)

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

Fails WP:CRIME, insignificant gangster - DonCalo (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Episcopia does not pass WP:Crime. There is information on Episcopia in the Bonanno crime family#Former members section. --Vic49 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Bonanno crime family#Former members. Article subject fails WP:CRIME and is not notable enough for his own article.--Slon02 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episcopia does not pass WP:Crime. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that's all there is to say about him, rub him out... Peridon (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Reinstating !vote[reply]
Delete not notable Rogermx (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thought it worth mentioning the article was blanked [11] before being nominated. 72.74.220.50 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Mind you, the removal of material was in June and it's not been contested. Anyone else care to comment? Peridon (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the old unreferenced information was included he still is just a minor gangster that does not meet WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it unreferenced, or was it actually referenced by the books listed? Referencing doesn't have to be from the internet. It makes our lives easier if it is available online, but there's nothing that says it must be. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with many articles on American Mafia members is that they are often very loosely base on books mentioned and have a high degree of WP:NOR. However, even if he is mentioned in those books, that still does not make him a notable gangster but rather a side figure that can be dealt with in the other articles mentioned above. - DonCalo (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just an ordinary criminal. --Gelobet sei (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not on the FBI 10 Most Wanted List, nor similar notoriety in the news. There are at least five people with the same name, none of whom are notable. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dade Behring[edit]

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

Delete. Insufficient notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the NYTimes thinks its acquisition by Siemens is of such importance as to justify an article on that , the company is notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP notability guidelines are not dependant on whether a NYT article exists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — funny, i thought that that's exactly what the satisfaction of notability guidelines did depend on. significant coverage in reliable sources is just another way to spell new york times in most circles. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — it's not just an article from the gray lady here, clicking on the find sources generated news link up there at the top gives 686 hits, from a span of at least 10 years, including such sources as the chicago tribune, the sun-times, reuters, and the chicago daily herald. easily meets gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of coverage of the organization in reliable and independent sources- including the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Some sources worth looking at are [12], [13] (passing mention in relation to a presidential candidate), [14], [15], [16], [17]. The company was widely noted for its financial struggling a few years ago, and then for its rapid recovery marked by its growing revenue and rapidly rising stock prices. Per WP:LISTED, most companies listed on major stock exchanges (in this case it was listed on NASDAQ) are usually notable. I could probably find more sources, but I think that the ones I have listed are good enough for this AfD.--Slon02 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic (see above). It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources.Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this, many news articles about the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:53, 21 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 keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcreation[edit]

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

Do not understand article and cannot tell what it's supposed to be about --Christian and Jericho 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search suggests this is definitely a notable term, although the article as it is seems to fail WP:NOTESSAY. Needs either a substantial rewrite by a more experience editor, or to be turned into a redirect to an article that covers the same material (if one exists - this is by no means an area of expertise for me). Moswento (talk | contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was originally posted, and AfD-ed, under the title "Cultural adaptation", because "Transcreation" was already in use as a redirect to The Little Book of Transcreation, currently at AfD here. The author asked on the talk page how it could be renamed, and since "Transcreation" is clearly the proper title I have boldly done that, and have also renamed the AfD, fixing (I hope) al the necessary links and redirects so that nothing is lost or confused. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was concerned that this might be a proprietary term failing WP:NEO, but Google suggests that it is in wide enough use to be a suitable article subject. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD withdrawn --Christian and Jericho 02:36, 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. I think everyone in this AfD accepts that Penosi is covered in sources. But the consensus is clearly (whether based on guidelines such as WP:PERP or the underlying policies that inform them, like WP:BLP1E) that he is notable only for a single alleged act of criminality for which he was acquitted and therefore does not warrant a biography. No prejudice to the creation of an appropriate redirect -- there seem to be multiple possible targets. Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Penosi[edit]

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

Penosi does not meet WP:CRIME. He is only known for his association with Wayne Newton. There are other articles that cover Penosi and his friendship/extortion of Newton. See: Frank Piccolo (Penosi's cousin article), List of cases argued by Floyd Abrams#Wayne Newton v. NBC and Lucchese crime family#Former members. Vic49 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, can be dealt with in the other articles mentioned above. - DonCalo (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable how?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fails WP:CRIME and WP:PERP. - DonCalo (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources. Notable. thats it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for his own biography, a name in a list or a mention in a parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PERP clearly. That's it. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fails criterion of WP:PERP. nothing to indicate long standing notability or uniqueness of individual contribution to justify separate article. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability concerns aside, I'm worried that we have an article about a person that is focusing mostly on a crime he's been acquitted of. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:Crime. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Page was never transcluded onto the daily log, so this should be let run a full 7 days after today (the 16th) to allow it to draw more participation.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PERP, WP:BLP1E etc. Just being mentioned in the media is not enough notability for a biographic article. However, it might be for inclusion of some information in other related articles.--Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lucchese crime family#Former members per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. Not notable enough to have own article.--Slon02 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per reliable sources in the article and those that are available. Per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section 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.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are many articles that establish notability per WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC. See here for starters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP overrides WP:BIO in the case of criminals. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 23 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. Nominator is being shown the error of their ways at WP:ANI#User talk:ChristianandJericho. Favonian (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tadashi Tomori[edit]

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

Not known person --Christian and Jericho 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Christian and Jericho 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is a bit confusing. The person is unknown to whom? To you? The sources say that Tomori has won the WBC junior flyweight championship, which should be enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Boxing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WBC world champions are presumed notable per WP:Notability (sports)#Boxing Moswento (talk | contribs) 17:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per his status as a World Champion boxer and the strength of the available sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Boxing specifically mentions WBC.--Slon02 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WBC boxing champ. Bgwhite (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as a person who meets WP:ATH criteria for boxing. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep *facepalm* really? Really? I mean...REALLY?? ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tadashi Tomori held the WBC world title, and has fought for it thrice. FYI, this article contains three Japanese boxers' names. It may seem Nipponism. But they also have fought for the world title of the WBA or WBC (Kazunori Tenryū once for the WBA, Shūichi Hozumi twice for the WBA, and Masaharu Inami twice for the WBA and WBC). ~~This was the last redlink of Japan's world champions.~~ As the subject, and even within the article text, I have never easily chosen and written boxers' names in this and any other articles. -- (page creater) ak from the villa (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC), added strikethrough to misinformation --ak from the villa (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination is partially my error. I declined two CSD noms (with a proper explanation on nominator's talk page) and I offered the possibility of AfD nom without mentioning specifics of the procedure (WP:BEFORE etc). The nominator didn't waste a second, and so we are here. It is a clear case. Sorry for wasting your time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:33, 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 by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Dalmatian Plantation[edit]

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

The article appears to be about a book. A Google search does not indicate that it is notable per WP:NBOOK. RA (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything that suggested this book is notable. Moswento (talk | contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion. Not only is it a non-notable book with little to no google results, but I can't even see where it's listed for sale anywhere. I wasn't even able to find the author's website. I'm also fairly certain that the article's creator is also the author. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HD Supply Litemor[edit]

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

advertisement Recrocodile (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11; tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 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 redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Albert (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter: has only 7 fights, none with a notable organization or against a notable fighter thus fails WP:MMANOT. Google search reveals the WP:ROUTINE coverage of his fight record and about his upcoming appearance on a reality TV show. TreyGeek (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller and delink from that page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller This individual clearly fails the notability criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. I would vote delete if it wasn't for the mention in the TUF article. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He obviously doesn't meet WP:MMANOT but redirects are cheap. Certainly shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Astudent0 (talk) 19:00, 20 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 Otley#Sport. v/r - T P 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otley Cricket Club[edit]

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

Declined PROD (I wasn't the PRODer). No independent sources to establish notability. Longetivity in this case is not the same as notability, most English cricket clubs are over 100 years old, and that is not just the reason to include. In addition, the sourcing is extremely bad, local, and unreliable.

Cricket is after football, the most popular sport in the world, and a club without any national or international sourcing is most likely not notable, no matter how old. Cerejota (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their are numerous national football clubs that have article where age is less than 30 or 20 years and didn't appeared in international arena. This is really vague statement by above user that cricket is after football. Dr meetsingh Talk 05:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the rationale of the nominator, as well as what Mtking has put. Age doesn't automatically imply notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge One of the oldest cricket club. I think it should be merged to article like england cricket or History of cricket. Dr meetsingh Talk 08:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Otley#Sport, where pretty much everything worth saying about the club (except possibly its age) is already mentioned. This would also seem to be a better target than something cricket-related since the club seems to be more of local interest than sport-wide. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alzarian16's suggestion makes sense actually, no harm in redirecting the page to the sports section of Otley, so I'll change my vote to redirect. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:39, 23 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 per G10 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lanoue[edit]

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

Movie credits do not look to pass WP:ENT, criminal record turns this into a BLP issue. The Interior (Talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete g10 — this isn't the mormon actor or the minnesota high school guy. the name is spelled wrong either here or on the fulton county sheriff booking website, which calls him lanour. i'm guessing attack page? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, yeah. The Interior (Talk) 01:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race course, Ooty[edit]

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

Non-notable landmark, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. Doesn't have a name. The most significant info are the height above sea level, the race course's proximity to a railway station, and the fact that it hosts the Nilgiri Gold Cup Race. Sources are not reliable. Searches on Google yielded 8,200 results. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 13:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 13:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only significant mentions I can find in reliable sources are this small piece about a fire at the racecourse in the very reputable Times of India, along with a couple of paragraphs in a travel guide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ooty is more commonly known as Ootacamund. There are plenty of reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there are indeed mentions of "racecourse" and "Ootacamund", but the thing about the subject is that it doesn't have a name. I see "Wellington Race Course", but because the article doesn't have an name upon which we should base our searches, I find it really hard to determine if the books are really about the race course in question, or whether they're talking about some other race courses. Phil, do you know the name of the Ooty race course? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ootacamund is the former name, it's now reverted back to Udhagamandalam, but Ooty is still the most popular usage, sources exist using a variety of these names. Some online sources I found [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. It's the only high altitude race course in India and it's been holding races for over 125 years now and has a rather queer history to it too -- the land was originally converted to a man-made lake and then reclaimed to make the race course (why the Brits had to spend money to make a lake and then drain it to get a race course I can't tell!), so I'm surprised at the rather sparse availability of online sources (but I believe that's more to do with search strings -- I didn't just try searching for "race course" and look at all the books available). The LP and a couple of other guides allude to the history. —SpacemanSpiff 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems a renaming is in order. Perhaps to Udhagamandalam race course or Ootacamund race course? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think it ought to be Race Course (Ooty); the name and how it is referred to by reliable sources is just "Race Course", however, that's the case with the one at Vadodara, Delhi etc. The place name in parenthesis serves our disambiguation purposes. —SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - As has been demonstrated, there are many mentions of this location. I favour a rename to Race Course (Ooty) per [[SpacemanSpiff's rationale above. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I will change the name Race course, Ooty to as the name above. but one point see the Talk:ooty page link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ooty there the discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move Udhagamandalam to ooty. so i am going to change as Ooty race course. santhosh k 06:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
keep - Topic is notable per availability of reliable sources. Here's a starting point: here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- what shall i do next stop the discussion. i didnt any response for lost 2 days.santhosh k 10:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksanthosh89 (talk • contribs)

There's no need for you to do anything. This discussion has been running for a week now so an admin or other uninvolved editor will close it soon. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 23 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Sharma[edit]

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

15 year old inline speed (roller) skater, not the more notable ice speed skater, from India, where I'm sure it is a very minor sport. Claims are made of winning state and national medals and competing at international level, but there the only evidence is the personal website of the subject. Likely autobio from a single edit user. The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources verify notability claims. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google News has a few hits for other people with this name, but none for this person. Can find no evidence that subject meets any WP:ATHLETE criterion for notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The claims in the article are a bit sketchy with regards to exactly which competitions have been entered. With the lack of coverage in any reliable sources, about the only item this article would qualify under would be WP:ATHLETE with competition at the highest level of his sport. The website for the sport's governing body is not very helpful as it provides no athlete database, nor any indication what competitions are sanctioned beyond an events schedule that would imply that there is some form of world cup circuit. Given the lack of detail in the current article, absent any new sources turning up, there is no indication that the subject is a competitor in the top level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 19 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 closed as moot. Article was a stub about a town in Senegal. After the nomination, the original author has redirected the page to Mlomp, another town in Senegal. This may be an obvious right thing (cf. fr:Bouhimban); I don't know, but since the title is now a redirect, it's no longer in AfD's bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bouhimban[edit]

Article is just one sentence with no sources --Christian and Jericho 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Christian and Jericho 13:13, 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. Despite severall well reasoned keep !votes backed up with references, the consensus appears to be that the references supplied are trivial, barely cover the subject, or come from sources with very specific interest. Consensus appears to be delete. v/r - T P 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984[edit]

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

Match is not notable at all especially compared to other Liverpool matches. The article almost entirely consists of quotes from autobiographies and there is no media coverage to suggest it was a notable match. NapHit (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a well-referenced article. The match is notable as an international match. Indeed, a football match between a "Western" football club and a football team from the "Eastern Bloc" during the Cold War gives this event significant notability. Fans of the Liverpool and the Dinamo Bucharest football clubs will find this article especially interesting. I really wish people would stop trying to delete articles simply because THEY are not interested in the subject matter. Further more, it is especially offensive that this article has been nominated for deletion just ONE day after its creation. Deterence ^Talk 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find it offensive, that I nominated the article after one day then tough. Rules are rules they are there for a reason, the match has no notablity. The fact that it was a western team against an eastern bloc team is in no way notable as this happened throughput the 70s and 80s, should those matches have articles? No because they have no lasting impact.

Speaking of "rules are rules", learn how to format and sign your comments. Deterence ^Talk 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No records were set in this match, it's not the final of any competition, and it's not exactly a memorable game. Sure, it was physical, but it's hardly ever mentioned in the media, and media mentions are required to determine notability. – Pee Jay 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No media coverage right after the match has been presented, which is a shame, but there are references to plenty of substantial coverage years later, which in wiki-notability terms counts for more. Books are entirely suitable for demonstrating notability, in fact they may often be more suitable than newspapers. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says what is a reliable source depends on the context. A newspaper may well be best for the score and the match attendance; a book for how the match fitted into the general situation of European soccer at that time. Thincat (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that about a lot of matches in the last 50 years. Are we really saying we should have an article for any match that a few players remembered quite well in their autobiographies? – PeeJay 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I am not saying there should (in the sense of ought to or must) be an article, I am saying it is permitted to have an article. Thincat (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Was not a final and no records were broken. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game continues to resonate nearly thirty years after it was played, and is covered in particular detail in various players' autobiographies (I have included only Rush’s and Kennedy’s, there are at least two others that could be used to bolster the article [Dalglish's and Hansen's; unfortunately I don’t have them with me now but have read them]); in addition various other references could be used from official LFC Encyclopaedias, not to mention media references closer to the time the game was played (this would entail a trip to the library which sadly I am unable to undertake at present). In fact, the article is at a young stage and can be embellished and improved considerably, and I would suggest that it is far too premature to delete it. The person who nominated the deletion did so with the words "Match is not notable at all especially compared to other Liverpool matches" but this is a vague and inaccurate assertion and in the context of Liverpool's halcyon period the game is certainly memorable and historic for players, supporters and journalists and has over the years taken on a legendary status. The person who nominated it also wrote "The article almost entirely consists of quotes from autobiographies" but since when have major autobiographies published by major publishing houses not been WP:RS? Again, the amount of detail gone into by these players regarding this match far outweighs any other Liverpool match from the period, including certain finals. Jprw (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game does not continue to resonate after thirty years. Just because former players write about in their autobiographies does not make it a notable match. If that's the case then surely there should be an article for every match that players mention?. Look at the other Liverpool matches that are articles that were not finals. The Liverpool v Arsenal really does resonate after all this time because it was a significant match and has been featured in the media. Likewise the other three. Where has this game been mentioned in the media? I would like to see some links. The point that is made is that if this game is an article why not other semi-finals that Liverpool took part in? Why not the recent Chelsea ones or the 1981 one with Bayern Munich? The assertion that the game has taken on a legendary status is your view I'm afraid. Just because you think that, does not mean the game warrants an article. Yes player's autobiographies are RS, but the fact that the game is not extensively covered in the media after the match means it is not a notable match and should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To take your assertions point by point:

The game does not continue to resonate after thirty years.

Yes it does. It is frequently referred to in the media (compared to other matches from that era and only last week was the subject of a lengthy discussion on the club's official website).

If it is 'frequently referred to in the media' then I'm sure you wouldn't mind providing a few links. By links I mean ones that provide the match as the main focus of the link, not links like the New York Times one which provides a paragraph on one moment of two matches. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because former players write about in their autobiographies does not make it a notable match.

Yes it does, especially if it's the likes of Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush referring to it at length in critically acclaimed books.

If that's the case then surely there should be an article for every match that players mention?

The point I keep trying to make and which other editors seem unable to grasp (not just you) is that when this game is mentioned in footballers' autobiographies it is with a disproportionate amount of additional detail compared to other matches they mention. It is clearly more notable, more memorable, and has more incidents which distinguish it from other games.

Look at the other Liverpool matches that are articles that were not finals. The Liverpool v Arsenal really does resonate after all this time because it was a significant match and has been featured in the media. Likewise the other three. Where has this game been mentioned in the media? I would like to see some links. The point that is made is that if this game is an article why not other semi-finals that Liverpool took part in? Why not the recent Chelsea ones or the 1981 one with Bayern Munich?

As for these matches that you mention (Liverpool v Arsenal I presume you mean the 89 title decider) I see no reason why they shouldn't have their own Wikipedia articles, particularly the Chelsea one because of all the extra connotations with the ghost goal, etc. So you can't use that argument as a justification to delete this article I'm afraid. Perhaps this is simply an area that needs expanding within Wikipedia.

The assertion that the game has taken on a legendary status is your view I'm afraid.

Not at all. For anyone with a knowledge of Liverpool Football Club over the last 40-50 years, this is a legendary game. That is just stating the obvious.

Just because you think that, does not mean the game warrants an article. Yes player's autobiographies are RS, but the fact that the game is not extensively covered in the media after the match means it is not a notable match and should be deleted.

But it is covered in the media. Look at the references – even the New York Times discusses it. In fact, there are more media references than autobiographical references. I'm sorry, but your overall arguments seem to be blasé, ill thought out, and illogical. Jprw (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No its not discussed that IS the point. One paragraph in article about Graeme Souness having triple bypass surgery is not discussing the matches as its main subject. That is not media coverage of the match, that is media coverage of Souness himself. The fact that their were two matches and yet their are no links that deal solely with the match means it is not notable. Your basing your arguments on your belief that the match is notable, which is 'ill thought out' as this does not concur with Wikipedia policy. The point I'm making is that apart from Souness breaking the jaw of a Bucharest player nothing notable happened in either match. There is not significant coverage of the topic in the media. After reading the article there is nothing that makes the article notable at all. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that the article is barely a day old and that there are other references and images that I have yet to include. Jprw (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Few references that actually establish notability and no more notable than any other semi-final. Adam4267 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For me to consider an article on a non-final notable, I'd want to see some evidence that the match received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the time fram e when it was held. I don't see that proof here. The sources in the article are a mix of primary sources and articles that aren't about this match in particular. To offer a comparison, Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) apparently has a book written about it, along with a substantial Guardian article. Those are the kind of sources that we need to prove an individual game's notability. Unless something along those lines can be found for this article, I don't think it should stay. Hopefully the other references to be included will improve matters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me to consider an article on a non-final notable, I'd want to see some evidence that the match received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the time frame when it was held.

It does. Look at the sources. And where does it say that only finals can have their own articles?Jprw (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Non-notable football match and nothing indicating its notability. As for the reasoning to keep it, of course players will talk about it in their autobiography, its their autobiography! If I wrote an autobiography I'd include the greatest 5 a side matches I've played in, that wouldn't make them notable though. TonyStarks (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable football match and nothing indicating its notability. I find this baffling. How can the semi-final of the European Cup not be notable? This match is certainly more notable and significant than, say, the 1987 Littlewoods Cup final. It is also the biggest game in D Bucharest's history. It is still talked about in the media and referred to at length in players' autobiographies and footballing encyclopaedias. What is the problem? Jprw (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable historic LFC matches which do not have a WP article but should: 1977 QF vs. St Etienne; 2005 SF vs. Chelsea; 1989 title decider vs. Arsenal. This is an area in WP that needs expanding, and this has been something positive to have come out of this discussion.Jprw (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is only a couple of days old. It's already well written and well referenced but I expect it to improve still. Being a European Cup semi final makes it notable. bbx (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cup semi-finals are not independently notable, and I see no other notability here. Giant Snowman 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally, I would say a semi-final is not in itself notable. However there is a case that this particular one has received coverage by multiple reliable sources and thus meets our general notability guidelines. The lead section gives an indication of why this match is considered notable and the article in general is appropriately-written. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please do not try to draw me into the long, ongoing argument re: this article. I do not care one iota about Liverpool FC, games "echoing through the ages", other semi-finals which may-or-may-not be more/less/equally important, etc. I'm simply going by my interpretation of the guidelines. Thanks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twelve out of seventeen refs listed come from either specialized media outlets which are obsessed with Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC only or ex-Liverpool FC players' autobiographies, and two out of the remaining five point to UEFA's website with nothing but a scoreline, proving only that the match really occurred. There's very little here to suggest that the match is regarded as notable to anyone outside Liverpool. The conclusion Jprw drew above (This is an area in WP that needs expanding, and this has been something positive to have come out of this discussion.) is concerning. Try explaining to non-football editing Wikipedians why a project which currently covers some 148,000 articles (92,000 of which are assessed as stubs) "needs expanding" into new and pretty uncharted territory. You could start by proving that the match was seen as notable by somebody not related to Liverpool before participating players decided to mention it in their autobiographies published in 2005 and 2009. You have over 20 years of newspaper archives and football books to dig through. Timbouctou (talk) 20:46, 23 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 as A7, article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, by Peridon (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Futbol[edit]

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

General notability concerns per WP:CORPDEPTH (could also CSD per A7) RA (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no sources evident through a Google search, no reason to believe sources might exist. Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches yielded only 6,200 results (failes WP:GNG) consisting almost entirely of non-reliable sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 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, WP:Snowball. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burrn![edit]

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

Not notable magazine --ChristianandJericho 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) ChristianandJericho 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just not notable?. Why is that exactly? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nom is ridiculous. It's very easy to find references to this magazine through Google, and there are half a dozen such links in the references for the article. In addition, it's mentioned in around 25 Wikipedia articles about heavy metal music - often accompanied by such descriptions as 'long-established, 'respected'. 'heavy metal bible' etc. One of the most telling links to establish notability is the last one, where the extremely well-known band Kiss, on their own website, have a page describing the article about them in Burrn!. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Contribs 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just wanted to add a keep in here. Looking more into the article itself, you nominated this article for deletion a little over 2 hours after it was created. From what I've seen so far, it definitely seems notable as long as it's given the time to be created and cited, which you have not given at all. Unless you provide more than what you've put above, this AfD is going to pass as Keep. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this user first nommed the article for deletion less than 15 minutes after I had created it, which to my mind is completely unreasonable behaviour, especially towards an established editor. And he seems determined to delete it even after I've provided extensive rationale for its notability. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this article is notable as not many pages link to it --Christian and Jericho 12:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist CC's page and saw this. It does seem a little hasty to put it up for deletion, particularly given the findings of the recent Summer Research Project at the Foundation (see The Signpost archives), which has found that new editors are really put off by hasty deletions. It's really hard to assemble all of the required information at once when creating an article. Tony (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a major magazine title that has received a fair amount of third-party coverage, even outside Japan. --DAJF (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Burrn! was cited by Blabbermouth.net ([23]), Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles ([24]). Metal Rules called it of "relevant print magazine" along Guitar World and Rock Hard ([25]). T.R.Elven (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources in the article that establish notability of the topic, and those listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we know where this is going. Also, I guess ChristianandJericho gave up this fight and has chosen to harass someone else. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No actually I still want this article deleted per WP:N --Christian and Jericho 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one else does. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 14:40, 21 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. Since the deletion review, the discussion has trended very strongly towards a consensus to keep. That is where the consensus now lies, both sides of the debate having generally raised valid arguments. Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Adrianne Reynolds[edit]

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

This strikes me as a case of "single event"--an article on a topic that does not rise to the proper level of notability since there appears to be no larger impact. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created via WP:ATC after a significant number of repeated denies, by a now blocked user. Due to the fact this event was in 2005, but a new book on the topic was published this year (being the only book on this topic) there is reason to believe un-revealed WP:COI exists, in particular a violation of WP:NOPAY. That the community didn't allow creation of this article until a now blocked user acted, gives extra caution to this. When examining claims made here, it is important to have this in consideration.

Delete. I see a lack of lasting effects. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 9, the closing admin should note that this "Delete !vote has not cited a relevant policy" and that " 'no lasting effects' is not a valid argument for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this case is the subject of a new book (this month) by M. William Phelps. It seems to me that if phelps, a fairly well-known and respected true crime author, found enough material to write a book about the case 5 years after the fact, then there's a good chance that (a) the case is notable and (b) that there are much higher quality secondary sources available than the article in its current state suggests that there are, e.g. the book itself and the source material that the book is based on. According to the press release about the book, phelps uses a lot of interview material, which would be exclusive and therefore not available to web searches. i therefore think it's worth keeping this article around until someone can integrate material from this new book into it. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is also some, albeit not deep, mention of this case in Inside the Mind of a Teen Killer By Phil Chalmers. it seems to me that this subject is in fact being discussed and is developing. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the announcement of the publication of one book help out here? If a subject is being discussed, maybe we should wait until that discussion is over and we know whether something had an effect or not. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad case, but it's local news regurgitated multiple times by cable true crime shows and Dateline to give it artificial notability it need not have and treat this tragedy as mere entertaining time-slot filler. No lasting effects in other forums of law or forensics. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Artificial" notability? Is there such a thing? The question is whether the event is notable, not whether it should be. joe•roe^t•c 22:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If not for this attention lavished upon it by these cable crime shows it would just be a regular case confined solely to the Quad Cities and the Illinois AP newswire in brief, as it sounds like this ended up (I don't remember hearing anything about this at the time on Chicago news radio stations, for instance). However you get the cable crime shows in who need content and they make it seem like a bigger case than it is in reality. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment it seems to me that, if true, the fact that it wasn't covered much at the time it happened, but is now being covered, is actually an argument in favor of notability rather than against. we're looking for judgements of notability over time, rather than all at once, and that seems to plausibly be what we have here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you can't disqualify those TV shows as evidence of notability just because you find them distasteful. joe•roe^t•c 08:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we can disqualify them for being unreliable sources (generally tv programs are not RS) not to mention ignore them as per WP:SENSATION--Cerejota (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that we can discount numerous TV crime shows as reliable sources to support notability of a crime. Reliable Sources Noticeboard does not exclude Dateline as a reliable source:[26]. Books about crimes are not excluded as reliable sources, nor are TV news shows. Edison (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mistake to confuse a shocking news story with WP:SENSATION. WP:SENSATION is primarily concerned with news sources with a bias away from careful fact checking. This could indeed be a problem in a shocking story like this, but after reading the Quad-City Times article, written five years after the initial event, I see no sensational facts in our article that are not reliably sourced. I do see a reliably sourced statement in the newspaper article that this story is "shocking". In summary, I see no evidence that WP:SENSATION applies. Unscintillating (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this seems to be coverage of a single event. Topher385 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the delete !voters here are wrong its not a single event, with the trials and judgement there it has achieved continued coverage. also local doesnt mean non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also coverage in notable television crime series. not all murders gets coverage on these kind of shows they need to be notable,. Also the case will appear on another notable tv-show in september 2011, making me even more confident that the article should be kept and that also the first delete !voter was wrong when stating the reason no lasting effect as a reason as it has had coverage and thereby effects.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's the problem; just because it appears on a television series doesn't give it automatic notability. It is a tragedy but the reputation of Deadly Women and Snapped both aren't very good at all; all they do is take a case and heighten the details to an absurd level which makes it seem more grisly than it is in reality. It's also unlikely that anyone beyond law enforcement, the usual cadre of "experts" that make the crime TV circuit and opportunistic persons related to the case appeared on these series because families of the suspects and victims generally do not want to appear on television to talk about this event all over again. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this crime has reached the notability standard needed for inclusion in the Wikipedia via the episodes of different crime series too. The crime is also the subject of a book written by M. William Phelps. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 30 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, causa sui (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep; I abridged it a little. the notability is the subsequent publications about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case has been featured in People, one the country's biggest magazines, as shown in the references list. It's a keep for me. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in one source is enough for you? Closing admin should disregard this !vote as against policy - even WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria states that "Routine kinds of news events – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." After reading the aftermath section, there are no lasting significance of the murder. The article should also be deleted per WP:EFFECT. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunate Keep - the fact that this story has been sensationalized by the tabloid press makes it all the more important to have a "just the facts" reference on Wikipedia. There is significant national coverage over an extended time, meeting all definitions of notability. Bella the Ball (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SENSATION. Quite the contrary, precisely because all the info is yellowish, we shouldn't give in to the tabloids. Just like we delete gossip from BLPs without mercy, we deny the tabloids influencing wikipedia. We are not a fact-checking media watchdog, we are an encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is established through the given sources. Whether they are personally liked or not, they do qualify for wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual murder has achieved a level of revulsion sufficient to spawn that final arbiter of cultural significance, a TV show about it. Sometimes, even today, even in the USA, individual murders still have the power to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I declined this article (and a bunch more from this editor) at AfC five times. Nothing against the creator, nominator, or the Wikipedian who approved the article, but I was counting down until this article went up for deletion. It's totally non-notable, is a news event, isn't properly sourced, isn't encyclopedic, I could go on for hours. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 02:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I am in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, in particular those who fail WP:NEVENTS and disregard WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, such as this one.--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME. In the case of events, persistence and diversity in sources is key. Because we're dealing with convicted and incarcerated living people, we have a special responsibility to honor the intent of WP:BLP. Per CRIME, we don't have articles on the perpetrators or the victim, but as that section suggests, on the event. As an event, this meets lots of EVENT criteria. We've got multiple linked news sources, (uncited) claim of national headlines, three news feature documentaries, and at least one book length treatment. Per N/CA multiple diverse sources can confer notability on an event. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet WP:PERSISTENCE, per WP:SENSATION we should ignore sensationalistic sources. Tho give an idea of the extreme level of puffery present in this article, one of the "sources" cited in the article as of now is to a Washington Redskins forum:[ http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?90249-Illinois-teen-killed-and-dismembered-classmates-under-arrest]. The key here is that notability is not established simply by stating it does - WP:N/CA specifically mentions that the case needs to be "high-profile" (this isn't) and argues for quality of sourcing. While there has been sporadic coverage of the case, the fact that some of the sourcing is fetched from online forums unrelated to the topic, speaks of the little notability of this case. You also make claims in this argument that are not made in the article - I suspect the "news documentaries" are tabloid quality treatments (to be ignored as per WP:SENSATION) and the book (Too Young to Kill by M. William Phelps) is probably the reason why this article was created in the first place, years after the event, to promote the book. Not to mention the book itself is non-notable and not a reliable source in itself.So yeah, delete PRcruft, we do not exist to retcon notability for Pinnacle's marketing department. --Cerejota (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, if Pinnacle's paying the page creator to create this stuff, they're certainly not getting anybody's credit by it. It's all pretty much drek, and no professional writer would turn this in. For the record, during a cursory search of the creator's other contributions, Erika and Benjamin Sifrit comes up, with a line at the bottom referring to a 2009 M. William Phelps book. So perhaps there's some fire to the smoke User:Cerejota sees. That user has been working with the page creator longer than I, but to my eyes the creator is just a newbie with access to the entire season of Snapped. BusterD (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A modus operandi I have identified is the the use of sacrificial accounts to create articles, and then the professional meatpuppets either directly keep, or expect a keep, and then move in "to improve the quality". I am seeing this pattern often in publishing, but also in tech - in particular the pesky Avaya case is amusing (methinks its a midsized purveyor of out-of-production Avaya/Lucent/Att products trying to catalogfy wikipedia). The repeated AfC requests howerver were indeed a faux pas I have not seen yet and are hilariously hardheaded.--Cerejota (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some more explanation of what you're talking about here, and in the box you placed at the top of the page. User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN is indeed a serial WP:AFC submitter (I tried to wean him off it once – no response), but a lot of his submissions were perfectly fine and have been created. I also wouldn't consider it necessarily a "faux pas" to keep resubmitting at AfC, because that's how the process works: submit-decline-improve, submit-decline-improve, until it's made. And as far as I can tell he hasn't been blocked? joe•roe^t•c 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting the same article 4 times in under 40 minutes is normal at AfC?--Cerejota (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not uncommon, in my experience, and perfectly fine as long as the submitter is making an effort to address the reviewer's concerns. But this isn't "AfC review" – I'm still confused about the reference to a blocked user, and what you have to back up a possible COI on User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN's part? joe•roe^t•c 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was bought out of AfC by a now blocked user. The COI is not necessarily User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN's, although as noted, there is connection in the topics.--Cerejota (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are legit. It needs to be rewritten. --Ryan.germany (talk) 15:13, 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, Sandstein 10:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete", but that closure was overturned and the discussion relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 9. Sandstein 10:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make an explicit keep !vote because I didn't before, but I don't think there is much else to say and would rather have seen this closed as no consensus following the deletion review. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and User:11coolguy12 have mentioned sources that demonstrate lasting coverage per WP:PERSISTENCE, in addition to the significant coverage in the news cited in the article itself. The delete voters are either pretending these don't exist, or dismissing them because of a personal opinion that the subject is in bad taste (I agree; but that has nothing to do with notability). User:Cerejota's—let's put it politely and say "suspicions"—don't appear to have any weight, which is discussed at length in the deletion review. joe•roe^t•c 11:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the article talk page on the COI issues.--Cerejota (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable crime per significant, diverse and persistent coverage in reliable sources. Cited above are Dateline, People, and a book about the crime. The crime and the trial got national and worldwide coverage such as in South America a year after the crime. It is unreasonable to discount books about crimes, or TV shows which cover crime as failing to be reliable sources merely because of their subject matter. Commentors should AGF and refrain from accusing those with different views of having a conflict of interest. Edison (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, there's just no consensus. I don't personally think this content is really suitable for Wikipedia, but deleting it is not the highest priority in the world, and enough good faith editors want to keep it that I recognise there's no chance of deletion. There's no evidence whatsoever of a conflict of interest and I think it would be best if that allegation were withdrawn.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I consider the coverage given sufficient to meet the GNG. The Dateline episode, as well as (to a lesser degree) the people article are especially indicative of notability. I don't get the extreme bias against news-generating events, from the wp:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Newspapers can be reliable sources (typically independent of the subject) that provide significant coverage of events. Buddy431 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG, several of the delete arguments here fail WP:NTEMP i.e. the topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline in the past, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.Polyamorph (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OSTRICH also applies to shocking stories, we follow the media, we don't tell them that they shouldn't be covering such stories. Polyamorph and Buddy431 also make good points. Unscintillating (talk) 17:12, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maareesan[edit]

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

No description, No reference. ansuman (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not that there's much to delete at the moment). Hopefully when it's actually released, there will be something more to say about it. Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost content-free article about what appears to be an unreleased (unfilmed? unwritten?) movie. Delete per WP:FUTURE. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - film still in pre-production stages. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:06, 19 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 Marvelous Land of Oz. v/r - T P 22:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nikidik[edit]

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

Not sure, but I doubt that individual characters from Oz are sufficiently notable (or sourceable) to have their own articles. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although there has been much interesting discussion among Oz fans about whether Dr. Pipt and Dr. Nikidik are the same person, and whether the latter faked his own death, etc. etc. that is not enough to make the character independently notable and article-worthy. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Marvelous Land of Oz. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:33, 23 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose towers[edit]

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

A non-notable (just 13 floors) dormitory with only local press coverage. No mention of important architecture, architects or incidents. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An entirely mundane building.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (At the moment) This is just a building. Not article-worthy. Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable building. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable dorm. Blueboy 96 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the very most it should only merit a mention on the University of Alabama page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete The University announced this week that it's to be demolished next year to make way for a new complex, [27] suggesting that this 1969 building is hardly an architectural or historic asset. The biggest coverage it had was back in the 1980's when there was a fire in the garbage chute. [28]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:27, 19 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1XR[edit]

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

In 2006, the developers let leak that they were going to make the coolest racing game ever and then promptly disappeared. I couldn't find any reliable sources on the subject, only a short press release. Odie5533 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This vaporware has been non-existent for over five years. It is hard to imagine how it could be less notable. The only surprise is that their 2006 website is still up, promising hot news "shortly". I guess they pre-paid their host. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, despite having a comprehensive upgrade tree. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:21, 16 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) 00:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violates WP:VGSCOPE clauses 1 and 8. Unfortunately for this article, WP:UPGRADETREE (Any videogame, living person or wombat claiming to possess an upgrade tree of advanced comprehensivity is considered of highest notability) is a policy existing only in my twisted mind. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:28, 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 Clock signal. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clock (computing)[edit]

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

contested prod and wikipedia is not a manual The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect — I recommend redirection to Clock signal. I agree that a description of the command is not something for Wikipedia, but the concept of "clock" in computing is relevant and the technical equivalent of the colloquial term would be either "clock signal" or perhaps clock generator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect I agree with redirect to Clock signal. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article now is the manual page for a C programming language function, little to do with the hardware signal concept. Library functions are not notable, so just delete. No sources anyway, and perhaps a copyright violation of cut-n-paste. Does not even mention what library it as in, when defined, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:59, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions having been offered). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Garric[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP of a session and touring musician. He's played with notable musicians, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Pburka (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I did bit more research and have added some references to the article. I believe that he's more than just a session musician, as he has writing credits on an Alice Cooper album. I also found sufficient press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 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 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Magazine[edit]

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

This article lacks notability. Article is written by and maintained by the person who publishes this webmag (see history). This person has been spamming wikipedia with these links and has been blocked for that. From COIbot: Top 10 editors who have added indigodergisi.com: 188.59.163.169 (85), Mehmetwiki(16), Mkaraarslan(6) In all this user has pleced at least 107 links to his site on wikipedia on both tr:wp and en:wp. See m:User:COIBot/XWiki/indigodergisi.com for the full COIbot report and other assessments of this issue.

Please review notability. This link will be blacklisted globally, whitelisting can be requested if this article is deemed notable enough. EdBever (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Mt king ^(edits) 00:31, 14 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) 03:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The AFD tag was improperly removed from the article and this led to an accidental second nomination. I restored it and sem-protected the article for 7 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd err on the side of caution with this one. Without proficiency in Turkish it is very difficult to judge whether this is notable or not. I agree it probably isn't, due to the low alexia rank, but that's a pretty poor argument for deletion. --Simone (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it is notable in Turkey, that is not sufficiently established. The statement "Indigo has taken attention of professionals" is far too vague. If it really had a lot of attention, then there wouldn't be a COI. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:44, 23 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 since this isn't going anywhere fast and it will unlikely do so anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Musician[edit]

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

This magazine doesn't have much notability. The merge destination suggested doesn't make sense as a redirect. So, I think deletion is the better option than merge or redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The (slightly-more-detailed) article International Musician and Recording World seems to cover the same magazine as this. Redirect this page and open an AfD on the other? Moswento (talk | contribs) 09:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Musician and Recording World, not merge since nothing is worth salvaging. Thanks for finding that, Moswento. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:07, 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. - improved since nomination - cited and supported by a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Southern US drought[edit]

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

Delete. Few sources, none supporting the controversial claims in the article. Perhaps there's a general article on drought, or extreme weather, where the few tidbits of information might go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Originally WP:PRODded with the reason "No sources and controversial claims." The claims are now the implication (not stated in the article or the sources) that the drought is due to global warming, and that the fires are due to the drought. (Well, I suppose that last isn't controversial, just not sourced.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On September 8, the Voice of America wrote "As wildfires burn across the drought-stricken state of Texas, farmers and ranchers there and across the southwestern United States are facing devastating livestock and crop losses. Analysts say the effect could ripple across the U.S. and world economies. And there is no assurance that the dry spell will end any time soon." US Drought Monitor reports extreme to exceptional drought conditions in almost all of Texas as well as Oklahoma, New Mexico and Georgia. Bloomberg News describes the impact on the cotton industry as an "unmitigated disaster" in a story called "Record Texas Drought Burns Cotton Farmers as White Gold Withers in Sun". MSNBC ran a story called "Crews battle wildfires amid severe Texas drought: 'It was unbelievable, just horrific. There were horses on fire, buildings on fire'". That was months ago, and things have gotten much worse lately.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worst drought in Texas history. Significant coverage in VOA cited above and other sources. Edison (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable event. Article needs to be rewritten so not in present tense, maybe after it starts raining again. BigJim707 (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properly sourced material. The article clearly needs work however. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and can still be expanded. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. I added a rescue tag to this article, so other Wikipedia users can search for sources to improve the article and it's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for "2011" "Southern US" "drought" shows ample results.[29] An article in Time magazine sums it up. [30] Dream Focus 12:46, 21 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 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WillPower (music producer)[edit]

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

Non Notable, seems to also be self promotional. (I had this marked as speedy but a non admin removed it i didnt feel like bickering with them over this) DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't see any decent assertion of notability in article, sources aren't reliable. Will be blocking after vote. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete check reputable references before deleting. Such as Complex magazine, XXL magazine, and The New York Times. Wikipedia article references are Yelawolf, Trunk Muzik, Trunk Muzik 0-60, All 6's and 7's, Tech N9ne, Rolling Papers, Wiz Kahlifa and more. ReeDawn (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER WP:HASREFS ReeDawn (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note User talk:ReeDawn was the one who created this page which in turn it is about him. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't enough circumstantial evidence, and there's no direct evidence, to support this claim. ReeDawn is a major COI, but under his previous identity, he has specifically claimed not to be WillPower. And for what it's worth, there is a reliable source (Complex Magazine) claiming WillPower produced a Techn9ne song. That isn't enough to singlehandedly end this discussion, but it definitely puts WillPower way past CSD A7. And for that matter, nonadmins are allowed to remove CSD tags. I would have had I encountered it here. SilverCity 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More then enough proof that User talk:ReeDawn look at the creation date of his user account it was made right after the created of this page was block also funny how this is the only page that user has ever edited. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not correct. Please read the user's comment here, then read WP:AGF and learn what circumstantial evidence is. I wouldn't flinch if there were a block per WP:DUCK, but it ought to be a lot more obvious for something like that. SilverCity 02:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AllMusic, Complex Magazine, and RapRadar verify the claims that WillPower has produced songs for Yelawolf, TechN9ne, and Slaughterhouse. The sources are still mostly terrible, the article is drowning in ad copy, and and this ought to be heavily monitored for COI edits from ReeDawn, but WP:COMPOSER says that notability is established for anyone who "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Eminem has sold tens of millions of records. Anything he's done is notable, including production credits. SilverCity 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. In answer to Silvercitychristmasisland, WP:COMPOSER gives a list of the sort of thing that may be taken into account in assessing notability: nowhere does it state that satisfying any one item on the list ensures automatic notability. Notability is not inherited, and having written something for a notable person does not automatically confer notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said before somewhere that I hate accusing people of making strawman arguments, but hey.

"[H]aving written something for a notable person does not automatically confer notability." The word "something" constitutes a strawman, since it refutes something I didn't say. It means "one" and there are reliable sources backing up my claim of "way, way more than one." If a producer does not have notability despite productions for several obviously notable rappers, that would set a scary precedent. Do you have any idea how many producers do nothing else? SilverCity 02:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Having written things for notable people does not automatically confer notability. Sorry that my choice of words seems to have misled you as to my meaning. As for "Do you have any idea how many producers do nothing else?", yes, and most producers are not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 16 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 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, v/r - T P 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research is not turning up the kind of independent sources needed or WP notability. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Oceanographic Society[edit]

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

This is probably a ~~G12~~ G11 but looks like it fails WP:ORG as well. Mt king^(edits) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a G12. See the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opps - typo meant G11. Mt king ^(edits) 03:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is but being the admin who restored it per this refund request, I'd feel silly turning right around and whacking it as "spam". This is becoming more and more common at refund, see this discussion, a case that inspired me to write WP:CHIMP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made an edit to start to address the advert issues. Notability might be established with Palm Beach Post articles -- Lateg (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this chimp might just get her tiara :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:06, 11 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) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet WP:ORG requirements. It is even mentioned in Frommer's Florida guidebook. --Noleander (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should be fairly easy to source with a little effort from hard-copy sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ORG. I added a rescue tag to this article so other Wikipedia users can search for reliable sources to improve the article, too. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG requires significant coverage - whilst there are ample mentions of the FOS out there (in gnews, gbooks and elsewhere), I've yet to come across anything actually about the organisation. Most mentions are in connection with its management of the Florida Oceanographic Coastal Centre, which may itself be notable and article-worthy, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. News sources are either quotes from Mark Perry, the organisation's executive director, or mentions of local events they are involved in. Nowhere does there seem to be a reliable source that actually talks about the FOS itself. Yunshui (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC) who is open to being convinced otherwise, and will change my !vote if someone can point me to such sources.[reply]
keep - repeating above, Meets WP:ORG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeina Awad[edit]

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

Other than the first ref, which just gives her a passing mention, the others are all links to the program she hosts, and are therefore not independent of her. I cannot find enough about her anywhere to amount to "sufficient sources" to determine notability, and my feeling is that journalists (being in print / media all the time) don't really come into the category of sufficient coverage just because of that; it's hard to establish notability here. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presenting a news show on a major international news network makes her notable. The fact that there isn't a lot of personal information about her shows she is a private person but does not make her less notable. Viewers of her show who want to find out about her can find the available information here, however limited that info is, --filceolaire (talk) 22:55, 15 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The proposer is correct in saying there are few independent sources that discuss her. On the other hand, she is a reporter (and it is noteworthy that she is a female reporter) at Al Jazeera, which is a very critical news agency. But absent more sources, she really is not very notable yet. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. The guideline WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is highly superior compared to deleting this article hastily. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic also passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section 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.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:58, 21 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 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbuzz[edit]

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

This is an entirely unremarkable website - I'm a petrol head and I have never heard of it before. It has mostly been developed by a single purpose editor who, from his username, looks to have a close connection with the company i.e. is its founder. Other than one brief mention in The Guardian I can't find any significant references to support its notability. Biker Biker (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of carbuzz but have only added three contributions including the site to where I felt it would be useful.

You may not have heard of the website, but we've received a lot of press attention in the UK where are primary audience focus is. You can see some of it here - http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/press

It is also not a single editor site. We have 3 full time editors and 3 contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with more press comments, with links to their relevant Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two paragraph mention in The Guardian consists mostly of information provided by the company. Other claimed sources are to tech or advertising industry trade blogs and Website of the Week lists, and do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided by the company in the same way any press release does - Yes. Again, a comment from someone from America. There will be many publications that are famous in the UK that aren't known in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is rather dismissive of people from outside the UK and does you absolutely no favours. And why do you say "again"? I am a Brit. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am aware that The Guardian is an important newspaper. The problem still is independent and significant coverage. A brief blurb at the end of an unrelated story repeating information from the site founder is not really independent coverage, and is borderline on significant coverage. "Information provided by the company in the same way any press release does - Yes" - which is why that does not really constitute an independent source, no more than any press release would. It's pretty well established that getting your press releases distributed by others does not constitute independent coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a press release is to give a journalist background information about the company/news event and to alert them to it. The Guardian journalist has been alerted to the site by the press release, viewed it and given his own opinion on it. He liked it so decided to include it. Wikipedia says that "an independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective" - I fail to see how this is not independent coverage?

Likewise the other independent sources that covered the launch both fit into that category. The fact that they have detailed Wikipedia pages shows that they must be significant sources too. How many sources do you want before accepting it's significant coverage?

I can understand if you don't like the site or concept yourself, but that's beside the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Notability, especially the WP:GNG section. The only thing achieved by mentions in the press that are based on your press release is to establish that the website exists. They don't establish notability. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if it was a small blog just writing about the fact it had launched then it wouldn't establish notoriety, but these are independent, well known and trusted sources writing about the site. They wrote about it when it launched, but wouldn't have covered it if they didn't think it was newsworthy or a good product to show their readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states that...

"Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

If you read the references, then you will see that both press release information and personal, unibased, and spontaneous remarks about the site are present.

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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient independent sources to meet WP notability requirements. Web sites in particular need something more meaty that a couple of PR-oriented reviews. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at the links and did my own web search. The independent coverage essentially amounts to a few brief mentions that there's this new web site. I like these types of sites, so I hope it merits notability in the future, but I think it is short of it at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'd argue what level constitutes a necessary level of coverage. The site was featured in a number of well respected publications. That kind of media coverage cannot be bought. Yes it is PR related, but so is any film, book, fashion collection launch etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 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 Outlawz. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm (rapper)[edit]

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

Page was redirected but move was contested. BLP with no sources, not elegible for BLP PROD. Proposing redirect to Outlawz. Mato (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outlawz, and protect if necessary to make it stick. This rapper is known only within the context of the group, and I can find no significant coverage about her that would establish notability for an independent article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 12 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agree with Whpq. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 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 redirect to Mughal Army#ahadees. v/r - T P 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahadees[edit]

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

The common use of the term ahadees is the plural form of hadith. There is no evidence, in Wikipedia, Google search, or otherwise, that the word also referred to a cavalry Ratibgreat (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ahadees.com, the word ahadees means "Sayings of Holy Prophet Hazarat Muhammad S.A.W.". The article on hadith in Wikipedia states that "The term Hadīth (plural: hadith, hadiths, or ahadith) is used to denote a saying, act or tacit approval, validly or invalidly, ascribed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad." There is no evidence that the word means anything else. Ratibgreat (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, there are actually a number of sources on that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir why you want to delete this. If you want a proof I have a telugu history book named Madya yugalanati bharatadesm(Medivial India) written by Satish Chandra. I read about the Ahadees in that book. If you have any doubt in my words then I will send you scans of book pages. Sridhar1000 (talk)

Okay, great! My bad! So I guess we can ask the original author to add the citations. I'll add categories and WikiProjects to the page so that more people can get involved. I guess the consensus is now keep? Ratibgreat (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources I see point to Ahadi/Ahadis being more common than Ahadee/Ahadees, would you agree? --Muhandes (talk) 17:07, 10 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Keep - but rename to "ahadis" - This word definitely means a kind of knight or horseman or gentleman in the ancient Mughal world. Lots of sources: [31], [32] , [33], [34], etc. There is some confusion because the word can be spelled a few ways (ahadis, ahadi, ahadee), and the spellings may use diacritics, and the plural is different, and the same spelling also means a kind of Islamic quote, namely hadith. But it is a genuine class of warrior. However article should be renamed to singular "ahadis" because (1) more consistent with WP naming conventions; and (2) more commonly used term in the sources. Amending vote per Fram below --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Ahadis per above. If I understand correctly the nominator withdrew the nomination (that's what "Okay, great! My bad!" usually means) so there is very little reason for this relisting. Renaming discussion can be taken to the talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Fram below, good catch. --Muhandes (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect, the page is a literal, unattributed (and thus copyright violating) copy of Mughal Army#ahadees. No need to duplicate this info. Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qiulin Zhang[edit]

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

The article claims an impressive resume, but a Google search ([35]) doesn't suggest the same kind of notability as the article claims, and in fact, I think, shows insufficient notability. The puffery suggests self-advertisement. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that the subject's name is usually Romanised as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using Phil Bridger's alternative rapidly produces mentions in passing, from reliable news sources, of enough of her resume for me to believe the rest of it - and, just given the ones I've seen, to pass ENT#1. The parts mentioned are mostly secondary ones - but they are still significant within the works concerned and she has been performing at least some of them (for instance, Erda in Der Ring des Nibelungen) at some of the world's leading opera houses (the Royal Opera, London [36] and the Paris Opera). PWilkinson (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 11:42, 13 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Opera is a very heavily documented art form. She started singing professionally over 20 years ago, yet in all that time, she has no mention at all in any books except a few trivial mentions in a few books e.g. [37]. That tells me she is a very, very minor singer. Web soruces are a bit more significant, and seem to show that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER requirements, so I'll go with a weak keep. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PWilkinson – appeared on significant Wagner recordings and in significant opera houses. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leading roles in major opera houses, widely reviewed. I've added some sample references to the article, but virtually every performance listed can be verified in reliable sources. In 2010, she sang Erda (one of her signature roles) in the Paris Opera's first performance of the complete Ring Cycle in 53 years — also broadcast in France and on the BBC. Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now sufficient sources in the article to satisify wikipedia's notability requirements.4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 21 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colegrove[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Cannot finf evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There were surely hundreds of thousands of farmers and local officials in this era. Kestenbaum (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not for genealogical entries. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claydon Heeley[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to prove WP:NOTABILITY in article or Google. Has been tagged as of dubious notability for 4 years. Edit history suggests coi and reads like an advert, even after editing. Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominaton Johnclean184 (talk) 19:17, 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as suggested by nominator. A minor company that does not meet WP:CORP requirements. --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing inherently notable about this company. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable unreferenced article. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Missing notability and reliable sources. Alex^{discussion ★} 22:47, 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 Redirect per obvious consensus. Redirect can always be undone if more sources are uncovered, song goes to #1, etc. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Night Long (Buckcherry song)[edit]

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

No sources, fails to provide any additional info than what can be found in album, artist, or discography articles. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - has charted at #10 on the US Mainstream Rock Charts and #87 in the Canadian Singles Chart. The article is however a stub with no information whatsoever. Any editor who wanted to could easily add some extra information and sources. If no editor wants to add any extra info then the article could perhaps be deleted until then. Ajsmith141 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Redirect to All Night Long (Buckcherry album); even a charting song needs some more substance to establish a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 12 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, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their All Night Long album. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ & Redir - nothing there to merge, so redirect to the Album. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:48, 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.