Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 27

< 26 September	28 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Yeager

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements. This actor has had minor character roles in a few notable films, however being an extra or having background walk-on parts fails to meet any of the criteria defined in WP:ENT. Raised to AfD as prior speedy and prod removed. Fæ (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - person fails WP:ACTOR. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Waaaaaaay too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per major violations of policy. User who created page, Actingman520, only has two edits, both this page, likely the person or someone who knows him. From then on, the CSDs and PROD were all removed without comment by IP 72.208.133.94 (which also only worked on this page), a violation of policy that prevented the artile from being deleted speedily as it should have been. I am about to lay down some righteous SOCK reporting for this. Sven Manguard _Talk 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations

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

The article is a list of non-notable congregations. Not even one of them is notable for its own Wikipedia article, and the creator of the article started the discussion page with "Taking steps to copy the list of Messianic congregations from various web searches and personal knowledge." This is a violation of WP:OR. The article is not encyclopedic; it is something more suited to a personal blog. Furthermore, the article was once deleted for these same grounds. This is the second time it has been created. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox. Listing non-notable religious congregations only serves to boost the profile of the congregations so listed. Wikipedia is not for: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise." Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing? - Lisa: You may want to review the WP:Canvassing policy. You recently invited several editors (BusStop, JayJG, Avi, etc) to provide input on this AfD [1] ... a better approach is to put notifications on project pages, or just let editors find this AfD thru the normal AfD notification process. That will ensure a more representative cross-section of opinions. PS: I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note: Five editors were canvassed concerning this AfD.[2][3][4][5][6] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) Canvassing would seem to be a concern. The article as it is just a link farm. Are any of these congregations notable? I think at least some of them need to have articles for this to be kept. Note that Bus stop's rationale is not valid as the list is not inherently promotional. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not "inherently promotional"? A Wikipedia listing provides prominence and a boost to the organization's profile. This is true even of comparable notable entities. The difference is these entities are given greater visibility without having first demonstrated notability for Wikipedia purposes. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have that effect but that's not the point of the list. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one view. I think certain MJ editors are using Wikipedia to create a public image of mainstream-ness. This article was recreated after the number of such congregations was challenged on Messianic Judaism. The editor who recreated this article had repeatedly tried to put a higher number in that article on the basis of WP:OR, and this article was intended as a support. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune dramatically. Some few of the congregations are notable, particularly those which were among the first congregations in the movement and are discussed at some length in the relative literature. Many or most of the others are not, however, and they could and should be removed. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. The criteria is too general - so far it is using congregations in the U.S., but then it will surely extend into the rest of the world. Congregations will open and close - this article makes it look more like a directory from a central organization of Messianic/Hebrew Christian congregations than an encyclopedia article. Any piece of useful info can be incorporated into the relevant master article, as can any note documenting the growth of this sect. Shiva (Visnu) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article contains not a single congregation notable enough to have an article of its own and is not much more than a link farm.

Note - I don't think that the fact it was deleted under the same title before count as precedent, since it was speedied before the discussion could conclude.
Full disclosure - Although I was among those asked to comment here, I have edited the article in the past and would probably have found my way here, anyway. I don't think this should prejudice my ability to comment here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I too would have commented here regardless of whether contacted or not. I commented here only days ago, and I was aware of these proceedings, and I would not have passed up the opportunity to express my displeasure with what I perceive as an unworthy use of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify what canvassing is not. As the guidelines states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following ... On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." I, too, have no opinion as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but note that the conclusory comment above to the effect that canvassing has indeed been engaged in was, IMHO, not reflective of a sensitivity to this aspect of the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Every last synagogue, church, mosque, ashram or religious shrine in America or on Earth does not "qualify" for an automatic listing on WP. Unless they can be written up as articles, even as stubs, and found to be fairly notable. That is something better left for Google or other search engines. Thus List of Messianic Jewish organizations exists and is enough, whereas the list in this AfD is a laborious violation of that by grand scale WP:Content forking. For the record, regardless of being contacted by the nominator, I always check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism every time I log on to WP, so that I would have come here from there regardless of what is posted on my or anyone's talk page. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM. I shudder to think what List of Roman Catholic congregations would look like, especially if notability was not a criterion for inclusion. St Anselm (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be an even better reason for deletion than the ones I listed at the start. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LINKFARM. Note: I was one of the editors contacted about this AfD, but I also noticed it on list of Judaism-related deletion discussions, and would have commented anyway, so the point is moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re: canvassing I had thought that posting the notice on the discussion page of the article was sufficient. When I didn't see any responses on this page, I was surprised, and posted requests on the pages of five other editors to get their attention. If this constituted canvassing, I apologize. But please note the time stamps on the creation of this AfD and the requests I made to those 5 editors, and you'll see what I'm talking about. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Messianic and Hebrew Christian Congrations would make a fine Category but a list is sheer non-sense The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A major purpose of list articles is to identify (by redlinks) articles that are needed, but one rabbi has an article and none of the congregations. Most have a footnote, but this appears merely to be a link to their own website. If kept, the list should be converted to a table, with the link as one column and the pastor/rabbi as another, but on the whole it might be better if it did not exist, as long as there is a directory elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not link farm, not directory, OR, non notable. He iro 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: At what point does this AfD end and the consensus get implemented? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I notice that none of the congregations on the list appears ot have a Wikipedia article. So I clicked several of the links, randomly, some led to dead pages, some to collective web sites, the few that led to pages for the individual congregation did not even have buildings of their own. In a country with many churches and temples, these are pretty marginal. So, while I understand that believers can allow their enthusiasm to carry them to create Wikipedia pages, I think this list should be deleted.AMuseo (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I appreciate John Carter's comment, but casting about on google for some of these congregations, I did not find any of them to have sufficient coverage to justify notability. Absent articles on notable Messianic and Hebrew Christian Congrations, I see no reason to keep this list. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petros Papadopoulos

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

Non notable, award “Ideas Factory competition" is not notable as well. TitanOne (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no reliable sources show up on Google. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus of lack of notability. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson's Curse (band)

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

Delete. WP:NN. No references. No blue links. A failed band that lasted 3 years in the last century long forgotten by everyone except its members. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soon - one of the post-GOD bands. Could be subsumed into there if I can't find sufficient independent references in short order. Yeah, it is a pretty crap article right now - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Not just reliable. ZERO unreliable and reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unimproved article of dubious notability Cool Hand Luke 03:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age-oriented pornography

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

No improvement, no references, nothing, for over 5 years since its first nomination for deletion. Brief search in google and google books shows nothing but numreous wikipedia mirrors and porn content spamming. Loggerjack (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay and has no sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original essay that does not inform. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
Delete the article describes age-fetishism, not pornography directed towards a particular age-group audience. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above 3 editors comments. He iro 04:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW -- Y not? 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Events that happened on a Saturday

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

This is an a-typical nomination and includes all of the other days of the week (Events that happened on a ...: Events that happened on a Sunday Events that happened on a Monday Events that happened on a Tuesday Events that happened on a Thursday Events that happened on a Friday Events that happened on a Saturday); this nomination is in part procedural because I believe it is inevitable at some point and we should have it now to either sanction more development, or cease it without losing more effort. While the arguments below are persuasive, I realize there are other arguments persuasive too, and I myself am only a hair away from neutral.

The list is an arbitrary recollection of the myriad of date-based event listings. We have those for years and months, and splitting them up by days of the week creates a 7x workload for verifying and cross-referencing these. Moreover there isn't a common connection between the events (other than the obvious date issues) (There's also the interesting cross-calendar issue of Jullian calendar and Gregorian calendars). More technically there aren't reliable sources that cover "day of the week" event listings as being reasons for lists. I'm aware there are published listings out there, but those would fail for NOTSTATS reasons absent an outside showing. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also include Events that happened on a Wednesday Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

delete all A weekday is a rather nonsignificant trait iof an event. At the same time I would suggest to introduce a category, kind of Events whose significance is that they happened on a particular weekday (I don't know a good name for such a category), such as Black Monday, Bloody Sunday, etc. Loggerjack (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

delete all nothing but a random coincidence and providing no encyclopedic value. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleete: No significance and no encyclopedic value. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. Renata (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary connection and completely unmanageable. Edward321 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These lists are nothing more than just linking things together that are only connected due to the day that they happened and are completely non-encyclopedic. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WTS. We have probably over a million events documented to day granularity... and when it's Wednesday in Hawii it's raining over here... Nice idea, but no. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
Cute but delete. -Selket ^Talk 20:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as just way too much unnecessary information. Too many non-notable events would creep in. There can not be anything other than synchronicity to connect the dots. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, really not necessary, this will go on forever. Qajar (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, events are not related. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is way to arbitrary and Wikipedia is not a directory. Hekerui (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. What weekday some event happened on is only of trivial importance, at best. JIP | Talk 08:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite delete - however in some calendrical systems (see Javanese calendar for instance) - there are auspicious days in the 35 day cycle - so in some cultures there are specific days that could be considered to have sufficient notability (such as my user name Satu Suro) and there are adequate reliable sources for that - so for all the 'delete' comments - there is a counter argument that there are days in some systems that could use such - but to get to an acceptable threshold of credibility - would need very very careful documentation to even get a smidgeon of adequate WP:N or WP:V Satu Suro 08:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all clearly trivia Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Arbitrary collections of trivia dilute the value of an encyclopedia. Peacock (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If it must exist it should exist as categories, not articles. --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Waaaay too indiscriminate. Moreover, I understand that WP is not paper, but WP also should not be crashing Internet browsers, as it did to mine twice while trying to open the articles. –MuZemike 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous categorisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Trivia. Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, trivia, please. Next we will have events that happened on a Saturday at 2 PM.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wood

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

Non notable extra in films. Claims to be producing a film but extremely vague in details. Created by editor with COI who also wrote identical article in IMDB. Cites consist of this IMDB article and personal web-site.

Has been speedy deleted twice already. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. COI sef-promotion. The Interior (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I was unaware of the previous PROD. However, none of the criteria at WP:ENT are close to being met as all the roles are very minor (e.g. as extras). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No roles important enough to have an actual name. No reliable sources for even that. Considering repeated re-creation, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 bit parts as an actor, and "producer" of a film that has not yet started production. This is very far from notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion, non notable. He iro 04:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary LeDrew

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

Blogger and web designer. Claims to have taken a three month bender with someone notable, and owned a couple bars that famous people got drunk in. Not really enough to establish independent notability. Gigs (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete requested citations in August 2008. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fact I would happily have speedy-deleted under CSD A7, but since it's here we may as well let the AfD run its course. Where on earth is the claim of notability? He writes a blog, he once ran a couple of bars, he once worked as a Santa Claus, he once spent three months drinking with someone.... I can only guess that the reason it wasn't deleted long ago is that it is so obscure that few people realised it was there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is that weird claim about the peace sign T-shirt, but I can't find anything to indicate that it's credible. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesing guy. Just not notable VASterling (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, unreferenced and unlikely for any of the claims made in the article for an afterhours club 30 yrs ago to be referenced. He iro 04:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 web, absolutely no indication that this meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. In fact, the article affirmatively stated: "Alans and Mosku is a brand new animated series so no references across the world wide web and/or internet has been made to represent Alans and Mosku's facts." NawlinWiki (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alans and Mosku

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

Non-notable cartoon. No indications can be found that it has ever or will ever air. Proposed deletion denied by IP editor with the summary: "This cartoon has aired in ToonTV. It's a new digital cable channel found in a brand new converter box." ToonTV appears to be an animation version of YouTube. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references offered at all? Shiva (Visnu) 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG, there absolutely no sources (not even unreliable). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recently created article by a new editor, should have the chance to provide sources or other suitable indications for notability. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there were any sources available, I wouldn't have nominated. Google shows 0 hits for this phrase, and even if the toon does exist on ToonTV, that is a video hosting site, much like YouTube, and doesn't grant significant notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we started taking "recently created by a new editor, and waiting a week is not enough of a chance to provide sources" as sufficient reason for keeping articles, we would find a hell of a lot of non-notable articles would be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources supplied, none found by searching. AfD gives the author a week to produce them, if any exist. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to be had means it fails WP:GNG. In response to CáliKewlKid, now is the chance for anyone to provide sources. If they exist (and I do not think they they do), this AfD offers plenty of time to produce them. Novaseminary (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google is not the end-all-be-all of sources in the world, last time I checked. In response to Novaseminary -- you are incorrect. How is the editor to know the reason his article has been nominated for deletion? The deletion process is highly-complex compared to the relatively easy nature of modifying an article. Please tell me, how is the editor of this article to know that the reason their article is being deleted is because it isn't notable... Where on the article page is this stated? This is steamrolling, plain and simple. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So if there are sources to be had, mention them here. Whether a subject is notable is not at all dependent on the status of the article or even whether the creator participates in AfD. Editors participating on AfD can and do search for sources. (As an example at this Afd I came along and added sources to what was an unsourced, copyright violating article, and I would be surprised if the article is not kept. And it wouldn't be because I complained about steamrolling, but becuase I thought there might be sources and I found them and mentioned them on the AfD. And for good measure I added them to the article. And the article will be saved despite the article creator continuing to violate policy by adding copied material).

And nothing stops inexperienced editors from learning why an article has been nominated. At the very top of the article is a link to this very discussion, which per Afd policy must state the reason for deletion or the nomination will surely fail. And there is a link to WP:AFD which tells editors how to participate in these discussion and a link to the deletion policy. (“Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.”) If you have a problem with the AfD process, choosing a handful of AfDs to make arguments that do not follow AfD protocol is not the way to get the Afd process changed (WP:POINT). If you really think the articles are notable, explaining why is not difficult and your view might carry the day. If you think non-notable articles should remain on WP, then I suspect you are tilting at windmills (note I wrote "non-notable", not "terrible"; all of us !voting delete would vote keep if we thought the subject was notable, even if the article were terrible). Novaseminary (talk)

Comment - Your assertion that it is not dependent on the status of the article is an oversimplification as evidenced by users who base their opinion to delete on the idea that there are "no sources." That is not the same as lacking notability (Articles not satisfying notability), how can one know this solely on cursory searches of the Internet (Google Test)? The fact that the article was immediately nominated for deletion shows an assumption of bad faith in the creator (Assume good faith) who is a newbie. A nomination for deletion is not providing notice on how the article may be improved but rather discouraging the new editor (Do not bite the newcomers). The proper course of action would have been to tag the article for notability (Before Nominating for Deletion #5) and give the creator (or another editor) time to provide evidence of notability, prior to the nomination for deletion. There is obvious potential for improvement in this newly created article which makes it a bad candidate (Before Nomination for Deletion #10)

So, I baffled as to why you disregard my opposition to deletion by claiming I'm against the policies when I fully support the policies. I simply disagree with those who would ignore them. Maybe I misunderstand them, in which case I have no doubt I'll be prodded in the right direction.

In short this article has unclear notability because a good faith effort (which would include a notability tag and asking the editor) to establish notability has not been attempted and deletion was the first resort not the last per "...articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." (Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines) -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Test text specifically reads:

Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet.

This topic is not so "highly specialized" that it would evade a Google search. Notable (and many barely notable) animations get hits on Google because of the vast number of fan sites dedicated to such things. The fact that this title gets 0 hits means that not even the fan sites have picked up on it yet. That indicates a high likelihood that valid sources are not going to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a strong argument against notability and an argument that an editor of a newly created article can appreciate. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to CáliKewlKid, many times editors simply stating "no sources" mean, not only that the article does not have them, but that they cannot find them either. I would note that several editors in this discussion do appear to have made a good faith effort to find sources. I have (including news searches and book searches). I found none. If I thought the article could be improved now so that the article makes clear that the subject meets WP:N, I would vote keep. Period. And then I would worry about helping source it or pointing editors in the right direction. I disagree that there is potential for improvement. I looked myself. That is why I voted delete. When notability is challenged the debate is about the subject; other types of deletion (for copyright, advertising, etc. might depend on the state of the article to some extent, but notability is focused on the notability of the subject) And if there are sources out there that I (or it would appear, you) have not found, there is plenty of time for anyone interested to participate here. The creator and editors do hve time to provide evidence of notability. That is why we are here. A nomination for deletion is not an instant deletion with no warning. And remember, an article is only deleted if there is consensus to delete. No consensus means it stays.

Giving new editors more time to waste more of their time on an article that will be deleted in a month or whatever arbitrary period your think we should wait because the subject does not meet any notability criteria is more cruel that just determining the notability and saving them the wasted effort. And nominating for deletion is not the same as not assuming good faith (though you assuming those of us who have !voted delete have not sought to determine independently whether a subject meets WP:N—though we say we have— is pretty close to it). Many times new editors mean well, but inadvertently violate policy. We don't ignore it, we just don't attribute it to bad motives. In an edit summary, the creator noted "This cartoon is a new series. It takes time for links to be created". That is all but an admissin that there is no significant coverage yet. Until there is, the cartoon fails WP:GNG. Once there is (to oversimply a bit), the cartoon will meet WP:GNG and then we can worry about the shape of the article.

Novaseminary (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I understand what you are saying but I'll recap just to be sure: You believe the article cannot be improved to meet the criteria of notability based on your search for sources and looking at the article and that such efforts alone are sufficiently in-depth enough to be good faith. The debate is on the notability of the subject and that you believe 7 days is sufficient time for an editor to put forth evidence of notability. You believe it is cruel to allow editors more time to source or establish notability and that an immediate nomination for deletion is not an assumption of bad faith.

Now based on that there is one thing missing: Looking at the article and searching for sources leaves out the most obvious choice for establishing notability: tagging the article or asking the creator of the article before the article is nominated for deletion.

I'm not in a position to debate the merit of the subject at hand because I am not familiar with cartoons or animation. I am in a position to see a sacrifice of thoughtful consideration and effort for expediency by filing a nomination for deletion and then asking for notability and then establishing a majority consensus based on less than compelling statements, hence the reference to steamrolling. (though WikiDan's last statement is more compelling than the rest, it's also a recent addition)

Giving an editor more time is not a waste (and I'm not sure how 7 days is any less arbitrary than a month) it is acknowledging that initial efforts may be imperfect. How is, before anything else, immediately proposing an article be deleted assuming that the creator's effort is in good faith? Wouldn't a non-bite assumption of good faith on a article of unclear notability be to tag the page and ask the new editor prior to nominating it for deletion?

If the idea is that you should be bold, anyone can edit and you do not need to be perfect then "deletion as a last resort" (especially in instances of novice editors and new articles) should be the norm (and it is, as stated in the deletion and notability policies). This is clearly a case of deletion as a first resort (literally 5 minutes after being created). -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus has determined that 7 days is right for most AfDs (subject to relisting). We don't make exceptions to that for articles created by or edited by inexperienced (or experienced) editors. If you think AfD's where the nomination relates to notability should go on longer, this is not the place to argue that. Try Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion or the WP:PUMP. And deletion is not permanent. If RSs do materialize if the cartoon makes it big, the article can always be recreated with citations to those sources. And the article was not deleted five minutes after creation. It was nominated. That put a big notice on the article asking the creator and anyone else interested to come here to discuss it. WP:NEWARTICLE. Novaseminary (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album)

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

Non-notable release. Non-notable label. Absolutely no sources found except Allmusic, which isn't so much a "review" as a one-sentence summary. Redirect declined. Not all albums by notable artists are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, speedy close, disruptive nomination. Nominator is clearly acting out of spite after his inaccurately grounded redirect was objected to. The issuing label, CMH, is clearly notable, and the nominator's (here and elsewhere) repeated assertion otherwise is absolutely unmoored from any factual basis. The nominator's claim that sources can't be found is ridiculous; as from the AllMusic source mentioned, a simple Google Books search alone, which the nominator clearly didn't perform, turns turns up a few dozen references, including Billboard coverage of the album's release about 30 years ago. In addition, per WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Kicking a hole in the discography of a notable artist clearly "serves no useful purpose." The nominator has provided no valid reasons for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show your sources and quit dumping your accusations of bad faith. What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard reference appears to be nothing more than a trivial mention - enough to confirm existence, but nothing more. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are undervaluing the significance of the coverage. It was the only upcoming release mentioned on the front page of the Billboard country section; it was not simply an entry in a laundry list of things to come. Such coverage indicates a comparatively high-profile release. In addition, the reference to a "12-page booklet" is important. This was an LP-only release; while contemporary CDs may include such things as a matter, of course, it was rather unusual (and expensive) for one to be included with a single LP -- it's another signal of a significant release. Few if any of the publications which regularly covered bluegrass thirty years ago are archived online; we should exercise careful judgment if assessing a subject based only on what can be conveniently found online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. If editors have found sources, I suggest they add to them to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The All Music Guide to Country includes a substantial review of this album, describing it as "certainly a special compilation" of a "true musical treasure" that "documents the early years and provides a glimpse into the development of an artist of character and quality."[7] It also appears to be discussed in Country Music: a Biographical Dictionary[8] and in a Washington Post retrospective article about Stuart's work[9] although these are pay sites so the entire source isn't visible. In any event, I don't see how deleting this content is beneficial to the encyclopedia's coverage of this major figure in country and bluegrass.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OSE "Deletion of Articles" and especially "Precedent in Usage" as cited above by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. In this case the album is part of a continuum of 14 out of 16 studio albums for a notable artist whose body of work spans over 30 years. Of these 16 albums, 10 charted in the USA but only 3 were certified gold anywhere, so consistency and precedent would seem to overrule the relatively lower notability of this album. Banazir (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CMH website notes the album and even gives a precise release date and catalogue number: [10] I also found record of The Washington Post music critic Mike Joyce reviewing the album in the August 21, 1992 issue. If anyone has access to those archives, it might help.Publichall (talk)--Publichall (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure the Allmusic review deals enough with this album to confirm notability, but if the article is not kept, a redirect (or possibly merge any content sourceable to the allmusic review) seems more in conformance with WP:NALBUM than deletion. The nomination states "redirect declined," but just because one or several editors disagree with a redirect does not mean that is not the appropriate action, nor is that is a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Nieves

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

Non-notable, unref'd BLP that reads like an advert. External links point to promotional sites. Lugnuts (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only near-notable "Nelson Nieves" I can find on Google is a model, and he too is most likely not notable. No WP:RS found, nor any for the bands he belongs/belonged too. Shiva (Visnu) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for sources, and found a few, such as this, but it appears that there's not enough evidence that he passes WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Studio

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

The owner himself "likens the business to a neighborhood bakery" [11] which leads to the question, does this article describe a new style of publishing, or a run-of-the-mill print-on-demand business with 50 (!) different books on offer? If it is the latter, it is not notable. Either way, it is poorly referenced: one blog entry, one extensive feature on www.neighborhoodnotes.com, the rest self-published. Pgallert (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a reference to The Oregonian, which is significant, but I couldn't find further coverage to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – To Matthew Stadler. Though Publication Studio has not obtained the notability to have a standalone article in its own name at this time, I do believe that a merge and redirect to Matthew Stadler, the founder of the company Publication Studio, with an article here on Wikipedia already, is appropriate and better suited than an outright delete. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it has to rely on quotes to cling to notability, its future doesn't look too bright. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love) -Selket ^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Smith (songwriter)

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

Only one notable song, sources are only chart listings. Content is mostly duplicated in song's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Wouldn’t a redirect to Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)be more appropriate? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love). He iro 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrew; and other keep rationales Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Markwitz

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

~~Article fails WP:ANYBIO ~~and WP:ONEVENT~~, one Academy Avard nomination is not enough.~~ Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone nominated for an Academy Award is notable - I can't believe you don't think that. This person also worked on over 50 films too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, one nomination is not enough. WP:ANYBIO says: receiving one significant award or nominations in multiple years. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - anybody who can build up this list and an oscar nomination is notable enough for me. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEVENT doesn't apply, but the subject fails WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times". Winning an Academy Award confers notability, as does being nominated more than once; being nominated just once doesn't. And despite a seemingly impressive list of credits, the subject also fails WP:CREATIVE, in that his work overall appears to have attracted no significant attention -- numerous hits on GBooks all boil down to a passing mention in lists of credits. I haven't been able to find any RS that discusses him or his work, and he doesn't even have an article on the German Wikipedia. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Being nominated for an academy award is itself a high honor, we're not talking about 3rd Place at the Athens, Georgia Festival of Cartoon Shorts here... —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.

Comment. While the Academy Awards are prestigious and being nominated may be considered an honour, it doesn't confer notability per the guidelines. Nor does a lifetime's achievement of non-notable works. The subject may be a worthy craftsman, justifiably respected for his achievements, but that has nothing to do with whether he's notable. If someone could find some reliable and significant sources I'd reconsider, but I found nothing. Jimmy Pitt talk 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy... do you live in Germany? And if so, do you have access to hardcopy news archives from the pre-internet film era 1936 through 1967? And I would sadly have to suppose that many German hardcopy media sources from 1936 through 1945 did not survive WW2... but some might still exist in Universities. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One Academy Award nomination is enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. More and better references and some fleshing out of the article wouldnt hurt.He iro 04:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep It is to be noted that in 1954, the Academy Awards were much harder to be nominated for, and there were far, far, far fewer of them even given out. If the nomination was from last year, I might agree that "just one" nomination might not be worth considering... and that we'd have to dig through the hundreds (if not thousands) of nominated individuals in dozens and dozens of categories to find his name. But 56 years ago? The nomination itself was a quite unique, notable, and special accolade to one's craft... and meant a whole lot more than it does today. And too, the ANYBIO seems more designed to guide us in modern assessments of contemporary artists, and would a have a somewhat less imperative application in dismissing an event from 56 years ago. This person had a very full career in film from 1936 until 1967... nothing to sneeze at... and yes, his work received the honor of his peers. And it must also be noted that a great deal of his work were projects done waaaaay pre-internet... wartime Germany and post-war West Germany... works that did not have American or English-language releases... so it's time to start asking German Wikipedians to check their nation's archives for pre-internet hardcopy sources of magazines and newspapers... souces that do not exist here in the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per the comment of MichaelQSchmidt. Mayve ANYBIO should be modified to reflect such cases. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Stuart Curry

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

Apparent autobiography with unverified claims of notability. Originally proposed for deletion as an unreferenced BLP, the article was expanded by the author to cite two references. However, a search of the referenced newspaper's website shows no results for this name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not played at required level to confer notability. No other claim to fame. Non-notable footballer. Article asserts its own non-notability.--ClubOranje^T 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - there is not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of all relevant notabiliy guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: not only isn't there an assertion of notability but I also smell a hoax. There's no James Curry listed in the player history section of Leigh's website (only a Derek and Kevin). What's more, if you Google for either "James Curry" "Leigh RMI" or "James Stuart Curry" "Leigh RMI", guess what the only result is... Bettia (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the article states Leigh's first game of the 2007-08 season was a 2-2 draw against Hyde, but according to this, their first game was actually against Hinckley. Looks like someone wasn't paying attention ;) Bettia (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. He iro 04:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Either way, it fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quarl ^(talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wack u sia

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

Neologisim, No general notability, no sources, and bordering on a hoax. Discovered during NPP, PRODED and declined. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Neologism, no claim for notability. LK (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - "We wack u nlgsm" is the new internet sensation. It means "We Delete Non-Notable Neologisms that were apparently made up in one day." "i wack u sia" is the new internet sensation, it means "I'm gonna hit you" —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
Speedy delete. Looks suspiciously like a hoax. The same user has just created Piringlish(Pirate English), which also looks like a hoax. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to give the phrase the benefit of the doubt based on the context, but after the revisions to the article came in I decided the article was hopeless. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. I could only not found any sources for this phrase. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article is a hoax, WP:MADEUP and Vandalism - Pmedema (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Millan

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of susbstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. CSD was removed by assumed sockpuppet created to remove CSD. ttonyb (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable individual. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Very little that could conceivably be regarded as independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guideline at WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Per the talk page discussion, I probably would not object to a redirect to Scott Millan. Location (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails any aspect of WP:BIO by a mile. Ray^Talk 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - non notable. He iro 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one was able to refute well enough Guettarda's argument about Ball not being notable as a professor. The vast majority of the keep arguments were extremely weak, mentioning sources that provide little information that could be used to write a sufficient biography. The fact that he is a professor who has won several teaching awards is not sufficient to make someone notable. Mentions of him in US Senate Committee reports are not by any means an indicator of notability. Detailed posts about him in the blogosphere, while they indicate that he is a person of an interest, cannot be used as a marker of notability. Neither can the fact that Ball has presented denialist lectures in the past; we simply don't count that as a measure of notability.

Guettarda again points outs a valuable point: "We can't use "publicity" to write an article. A series of quotes without actual information about a person is pretty much useless from the perspective of trying to write an encyclopaedic biography." We need sources. As WP:SIGCOV puts it, "sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine). Most of the news references brought up address Ball for a few sentences at most; I fail to see how that qualifies as "more than a trivial mention".

The only major news article that I saw brought up that might qualify as more than a trivial mention was this interview which was original published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. That single publication by itself, as it is simply an interview piece, I do not believe is enough to catapult Ball to the level of notability that we require here on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ball

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

Global warming skeptic NN except for a few GW-related disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF. No evidence of high impact scholarly work (criterion #1); no evidence of highly prestigious awards (criterion #2); not an elected member of the National Academy, Royal Society or similar body (criterion #3); no evidence that his work as made "significant impact in the area of higher education" (criterion #4); not a "distinguished professor" or holder of a named chair (criterion #5); not been a university president, chancellor or held a similar position (criterion #6); has arguably made a small, but not a "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (criterion #7); does not appear to have been editor in chief of a major journal (criterion #8); isn't in literature or fine arts (criterion #9).
He objectively fails 8 of the 9 criteria and, in my opinion, fails criterion #7. Even if he squeaks past on that criterion, WP:PROF sets a minimum standard for inclusion. There's very little coverage of his actual academic achievements which would be, of course, be the underlying basis for any notability under criterion #7. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the ISI Web of Science he has ~~five~~ six peer reviewed publications and his h-index is 3. I've known grad students with more significant scientific track records than that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Folk don't have to meet all of those notability criteria; just one of them :-) and I think that Ball does just scrape by on criterion 7 - there's several links to lay media that take his arguments seriously and I'm sure a few more could be unearthed if necessary. I think he easily meets WP:BASIC. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's not the subject of these sources - he's mentioned in passing, as a source. We've got his opinion on one subject. What information is there to write a bio - other than his own self-promotional material? I don't see how he passes WP:BASIC based on passing mention in a couple news articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we require enough notability to write a decent, rounded biography, or at least a decent stub? Ball is known for nothing but his climate change contrariness. Hence any article is bound to be unbalanced and a target for WP:COATRACKs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a well-known player in the climate wars, and we should provide as much info as possible to readers who are trying to assess the issue. The University of London confirms his PhD (Sci) and that his thesis was on climate change. (Most universities include climatology in their geography dept.) Here's an older version of our bio; why not restore it? Also, note that in his biography, he only claims 8 yrs. as prof. I think the longer claim was an honest generalization of his teaching. --Yopienso (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you think he meets our notability guidelines? Having a PhD does not make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can, gladly. I think Ball meets our notability guidelines because he has received significant coverage in RSs. He appeared on a documentary on UK public TV. The fact that the documentary wasn't particularly factual is beside the point: it was a publicly aired broadcast. Our article on Ball cites to The Telegraph, the Toronto Star, which notes, "One of them is climatologist Ball, a popular, indefatigable public speaker. Last year, he made about 100 presentations to the likes of farm groups, Rotary and Probus meetings and insurance industry people," The Guardian, Business Week, CBC News, as well as the Canada Free Press, several blogs, and other fringe media. My "Keep" doesn't endorse the man's opinions, but reflects the fact that he is, as I said, "a well-known player in the climate wars." We owe it to the public to tell as much as is appropriate about him so they can judge the players and the issues. Time Magazine, you'll recall, sometimes names blackguards as Man of the Year, not because they were so great, but because they were so greatly influential. I'm not calling Ball a blackguard or nominating him for Man of the Year, just saying he's notable, whether or not correct. --Yopienso (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N clearly says that we need sources with "significant coverage". Which source give "significant coverage" to Ball? None of the ones cited in the article - their mention is, at best, passing. Yes, we can gather he's a former professor. And that he has an opinion on climate change. But where is he from? How old is he - in his 30s? His 80s? Is he Canadian, or did he immigrate to Canada? What has he achieved in his professional career? He used to work for the University of Winnipeg. That's all we really know about the man from these sources. If we can't even build a barebones outline of who he is from a source, I don't see how anyone can call it "significant coverage". Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The very first source--the Telegraph--dedicates paragraphs 3-7 to him. The Great Global Warming Swindle alone is enough to call "significant coverage." (I'm equating publicity, not in-depth detail, with "significant coverage.") Amazingly, it won an Italian award. Unamazingly, it generated a good deal of controversy and rebuttal. IMDB lists Ball as the first cast member. The entire, albeit brief, CBC article is about Ball. ("CBC News is the largest news broadcaster in Canada with local, regional, and national broadcasts and stations.") This screed against him won a citation from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanograpic Society, and reveals that in 2006 Dr. Ball was 67 years old. And this more recent blog devotes an entire page to bashing him and casting him as a has-been. Excerpt:

By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada's pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him "Mr. Cool," although the accompanying feature was anything but complimentary.

Still, at least he was getting attention.

Again, I don't say our article should be laudatory; it should be informative. --Yopienso (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that the source you're choosing to quote from in HUGE LETTERS isn't usable, as you know full well. And you also know that if anyone wrote "Ball is Canada's pre-eminent global warming denier" in his article, the usual BSLP zealots would run screaming to arbcomm saying "lookit the bad man!". So your point, correctly interpreted, would appear to be that there really isn't much notable coverage of him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's BSLP? Au contraire, my point is that there is significant coverage. --Yopienso (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William makes an important point - we can't use blogs (or IMDB, iirc) as sources about living people. So what's the point of even bringing them up? Simply to mislead people who don't bother to click the links? Guettarda (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't allege bad faith on my part; I wish everyone would click on the links. Here's the one to Charles Montgomery's award-winning article on Ball and Co. that was published in the Globe and Mail in 2006. --Yopienso (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source...dedicates paragraphs 3-7 to him - while it dedicates several (1-sentence) paragraphs to his opinion, all it actually says about him is "a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada" and "Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle". I'm equating publicity, not in-depth detail, with "significant coverage." - that, I believe, would be a mistake. We can't use "publicity" to write an article. A series of quotes without actual information about a person is pretty much useless from the perspective of trying to write an encyclopaedic biography. "In-depth coverage" is coverage of the subject - in this case, the person. The only source that even starts to look at Ball as a person is Monbiot's article. And that certainly isn't "in depth coverage", it's merely questioning his veracity. Guettarda (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your and WMC's opinion against mine. I welcome any response you may have, but I think I've enunciated my view as clearly as I can and further comment from me would just be stubborn argument. WP certainly doesn't have to provide this information; readers can always go to all those other sites. --Yopienso (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate scientific record. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets Notability guidelines - and was featured in a show on climate sceptics. The question is - would a reasonable person expect to find an article on this person on WP? It appears to be viewed somewhere around ahundred times per month on average (stats.grok.se) which places the article in the top half of page views overall (yep - WP has many with well under a hundred views per month). So as long as people want to look someone up, it is reasonable for WP to fill that purpose. It might also be a problem in the current arbcom material if sceptic BLPs were being deleted as "non-notable" I fear. 184.88.137.247 Collect (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC) signing[reply]
- Can you explain why you think he meets the notability guideline? And why should it matter to the arbcomm deliberation? Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it quite possible that the person's BLP falls under the CC proposals. "Deletion" is certainly "editing" it would appear. Collect (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF criterion 7 and WP:BIO. Gnews link (I inserted an additional climate term to sort out from all the other Tim Balls out there) puts him at the forefront of the political discussion over climate science. Ray^Talk 14:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify how he passes WP:PROF item 7? That criterion states "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." (emphasis added) Since Ball retired from academia more than a decade ago, how can he make an impact "in his academic capacity"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having been a climatologist, that getting quoted all over the place regarding global warming constitutes impact. I'm quite familiar with the evolution of wp:prof over the past 2 years or so, and the classic case for criterion 7 is people who get frequently cited or quoted in press or other non-academic forums due to their academic credentials. He fits that situation precisely. Ray^Talk 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that there's another "Timothy Ball" involved in climate research. This link points to another person all together, which is, I suspect, the same person as the second author in [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00234.x/abstract this paper Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. He's the "Ball" in the widely used Ball-Berry approach for stomatal conductance, if you're familiar with that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he passes the general notability guideline because there is detailled coverage of him in independant reliable sources. E.g. here and on a more local level here Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What really makes that "detailed" coverage? All the sources I have found only give us three facts that stand up to scrutiny: he was on the faculty of the University of Winnipeg, he appeared in the Great Global Warming Swindle, and he sits on the boards of the "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" and "Friends of Science" - both of which seem to be only marginally notable themselves. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not at a complete disagreemnet with you however I am mindful of the high level of less reliably sourced information across the internet on this individual. Therefore I think that because the basic wikipedia criteria have been met we should at least take the opportuity to have a verifiable article on this individual but restrict it tightly to the RS information we have available. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can be write a biography of a person if we can't reliably source more than three factoids about them? That's what I'm really puzzled about with all these "keep" votes. We can't source how old he is - even to the nearest decade. We can't source where he comes from (Canadian? Immigrant?) We don't know what he did professionally. We can't reliably source what positions he actually held (Monbiot's analysis - and others, by bloggers - suggests that we need to take some claims with a grain of salt). So what are we supposed to write about? Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to stick to the reliable sources and not venture outside of them except for extremely uncontroversial details. However, if the article should therefore remain a stub it should remain a stub because we cannot verify the oil industry funding accusations etc. in reliable sources. We are all aware of the excess of material on the internet about this guy but should stick rigorously to the reliable sources which are clearly sufficient for a stub. Polargeo (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable, mentioned in a large number of sources, is quite well known in the media.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing sysop should be aware that this AFD was mentioned here, a page that had 22,000 plus page views in September. This comment is not a suggestion that those who read that page are more apt or less apt to support deletion, but simply to explain why there may be more traffic and stronger views than a typical AfD. --SPhilbrick T 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak Keep Polargeo's second link is a reliable 3rd party (albeit local) article that specifically profiles Ball and that clinches it for me. While Timothy Ball doesn't really pass WP:PROF, he certainly has enough to pass WP:BASIC. An article has to pass one or the other, not both. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the local paper interview/profile seems to be a reprint of a story published in more prominent source.[12] Sailsbystars (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is published as an opinion piece. It also contains nothing new on Ball, but only repeats his opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I realized that myself and that fact substantially weakens the case. Dropping to weak keep, but I still feel that the amount of media coverage is adequate (albeit barely) to meet WP:BASIC. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here is a comment from the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works acknowledging him as a "former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball" in this press release from June 27, 2006[13] (of course this was while Bush was President so maybe take this with a grain of salt too). Just a minor note for anyone working on his article - he was also given a couple of teaching awards by the U of Winnipeg, one in 1976[14] and another in 1988,[15] also U of Winnipeg gives a scholarship award (the Geography Teacher Prize Book) each year to a student in honour of Tim Ball.[16] - Josette (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument seems to be that he is notable because he a professor and that he was given teaching awards by U Winnipeg. The former is not sufficient per WP:PROF, so do you contend that the teaching award constitutes "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is not my argument at all, I'm not suggesting that he is notable as a teacher, although he might be, or that those awards are prestigious - hence the words "minor note". My argument is that the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works found him notable as a "former University of Winnipeg climatology professor" and thought his opinion worthy. I've just offered another reference, along with other arguments above, to help in the determination of whether he deserves an article or not. - Josette (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate thing is just Marc Morano acting for James Inhofe - ie, a highly partisan part of the GW denial movement. This doesn't establish his independent notability - it is merely part of the problem of him *only* being notable for his GW-"sketpic"-rent-a-quote-ness William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe being "notable'" for being a skeptic means he deserves an article. p.s. I pointed out the Bush thing in my keep statement. - Josette (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP:BLP1E not apply if he is only notable for one thing? That would mean he gets mentions in global warming controversy, not in a personal bio. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply here. This is not about one event. Good try though. I stand by my keep. - Josette (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- meets WP:GNG as well as WP:BIO and WP:PROF, h-index and g-index are not widely accepted as reliable indicators of notability. Coverage in reliable, secondary sources here, here, here, here, here here; publications here, here, here, here ,etc. Minor4th 01:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in the supreme court sense of the word. I can see meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO but not WP:PROF unless you're referring to criteria 7, which is a pretty big stretch as he is not particularly prominent amongst climate contrarians. Also, H-index and G-index are excellent metrics for evaluating PROF criteria #1 and should not be dismissed lightly. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first list of references (in as far as they are freely available), and none of them "covers" Ball. They all drop his name and mention his sceptic position in one sentence, without significant information on Ball. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:PROF is a bit of a stretch, but I think he still meets it. NO matter though since he meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Stephan, it is also true that those articles are not primarily about Ball, but they are not just offhand mentions either, and those are only representative of the first few Google hits. There is enough coverage about him and enough information about him that a biography can be written. Minor4th 01:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove BLP status. There is no BLP to speak of, but there may be enough about Timothy Ball in the media to warrant a separate article on the climate change aspects related to Timothy Ball. Such an article has to contrast his views with the proper scientific perspective on climate change (and explicitely state that the latter is the accepted view), even if that would violate the BLP policy. If that's not allowed, then we have to conclude that Wikipedia cannot have an article on Timothy Ball. An alternative may be to write something about Timothy Ball in the Global warming controversy article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Unless he is dead, any article even mentioning a person is subject to WP:BLP. We can not "remove BLP status" at all. Collect (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was listening to one of his denialist lectures (mp3s are up on archive.org), and ducked into wikipedia to find out some background on the fellow. It would seem very weird to me if there were no page about this man (and I'm disappointed with how sketchy it is: I think people have confused the need to avoid attacks on a living person with avoiding discussion of controversy about a person's opinions). Whether he's notable as a scientist is irrelevant, he's clearly a public intellectual. -- Doom (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an academic. At best Ball was a minor academic who did essentially no research, and certainly no significant research and had no influence on education beyond the students in his classroom. As an academic he has had no influence on his field or his university. Thus the current entry, which emphasizes his academic record should be deleted. A stronger case could be made for an entry emphasizing his organization of lobbying organizations, newspaper op-eds and public speaking, although that would be a VERY contentious entry, with edit wars constantly erupting. In that regard it might be noted that Ball's notoriety is fading in the past few years.

Perhaps the community should at this point, think about how to handle the situation (Ball's is not the only case) of how minor academics use their positions to leverage a public presence and at what point they become significant enough in the public sphere (including the INTERTUBES) to merit inclusion. If you want an example, consider PZ Meyers. -- Eli Rabett {talk} —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good idea! Notice how the argument here is that Ball can be considered only on an academic basis, while the argument at PZ Myers says his academic achievements are irrelevant and what makes him notable is his blog and activism. On this page, Ball is disparaged for the low number of papers he's published, while only the word "numerous" was allowed on PZ's article and the actual number was suppressed. (If Ball only has 4, which is controversial, PZ's 11 is significantly larger.) Etc. --Yopienso (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, PZ Myers is 53 and got his PhD quite a while after 1979. Ball is 71, got his PhD in 1970 and is now retired. In other words Ball's academic career is likely over. Myers may still be at just reaching his peak for all we know Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Can you find a publication of PZ's after 1997? I looked here and here. He seems to be an assistant professor who has practically abandoned academia, as far as research is concerned, for the blogosphere. He could, of course, change his tack at any time. --Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Myers had a number of highly cited articles on the zebrafish, which is an important model system for genetics and evolution before 1999. One of them has over 300 cites and two others over 200. Ball has nothing like that. An excellent tool for citation analysis using Google Scholar is Harzing's Publish or Perish. However, Eli thinks you are missing his point. Myers' Wikipedia biography focuses on his blog and opinion shaping activities. His academic record is handled in passing. Ball's is much more tightly focused on his academic activity. If you want to split hares, Myers has certainly done more noteworthy academic work in the past than Ball, but the focus of the Wiki Bio for PZ is where it should be for anyone (other than a zebrafish fan) -- Eli Rabett {talk}

That's because Ball's is in its early stages. He has been active enough in the climate wars we should have a bio on him for people such as Doom and myself who turn to WP to find out who people are. There has been no response from my query on the talk page about how reliable we may consider an article no longer available from the Globe and Mail. I believe it's a RS, but it has a couple of problems. It would be easy to cite criticisms from it if allowed. Today I have added a number of venues in which he has appeared as a climate warrior. I made a point of identifying all but Hannity & Colmes as extremist or right-wing. This should say something to the reader. What I object to is the contradiction of stance between arguments against even having a bio on him and arguments insisting we must on PZ. I think we should on both. Some time ago the same kind of arguments were made against Fred Singer, "He hasn't published anything recently!" I'm just saying, neither has PZ. So what? None of them merit a bio on the strength of their academics. Thank you, Mr. Rabett, for your helpful participation hare. --Yopienso (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Ball got his PhD in 1983 and retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. Another note for those editing his article - his teaching career at U of W is being presented in a very misleading way. It seems he taught there starting in 1971 just not as a full professor until 1988. - Josette (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those issues that give academia a confusing name. Ball was at UofW starting in 1971. He says that he was an Instructor/Lecturer, from 1971 to 1982, and from 1977 to 1978 Acting Dean of Students. He certainly only had an MA at the time, and the question has to be asked what was he teaching with that fairly low qualification, was he full time, etc. Frankly it is not worth anyone's time to get into, but it is clear that he was not a very prominent academic. -- Eli Rabett {talk}

OK, fixed it. You could have! Besides waiting for consensus on whether the Mr. Cool article is a RS, I really don't have much time to spend on it. --Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may be, in my opinion, a crank and a paid shill for corporations with an economic interest in denying that human-forced climate change exists. But given the coverage he's received, he's a notable crank and paid shill for corporations with an economic interest in denying that human-forced climate change exists. I don't need to like someone or approve of what I see as their deliberate perversion of the scientific method for the sake of their own wallet and damn the consequences to others, to admit that they are notable. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with reduplicated names

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

Trivial list. The one thing these people have in common, is an absolutely non-essential aspect of them. It is not the reason or a result of their notability, but a tangential aspect, not more or less interesting than people with names of flowers (from Axl Rose to the three sisters from Keeping up Appearances) or people whose name is also a US state (Indiana Jones, Alex Delaware, George Washington). While reduplication as such is an interesting topic, the list adds nothing to it (with entries having "Note: these names are not reduplicated in the original language", you can't expect much linguistic theory about reduplication). Fails WP:NOTDIR. Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, it is a violation of the WP:NOT policy. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this list as there was some support for doing so in the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 4#Category:Double names and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 11#Double double names names. There were valid arguments against categorising the biographies by this characteristic, but a list is acceptable. As for the parenthetical comment above, the list makes more of an effort to illustrate linguistic theory by separating the entries that are reduplicated in the original language from those that are not. The grouping by origin is a further attempt to illustrate the cultures in which this practice was more commonplace. (Note to nominator: please consider notifying the editor that created an article when proposing an AFD.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it illustrate linguistic theory? By separating American people from Australian people, Canadian people and Other British people? It doesn't illustrate anything, basically. (as for your note; it is a courtesy I disagree with in case of an AfD: it is a community discussion, where the creator of the article has no more or less a place than anyone else. We shouldn't encourage WP:OWN behaviour, nor skew the discussion towards people that can be presumed to be wanting to keep the article: so basically I never notify the creator or any of the main editors in case of an AfD). Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an introduction with some linguistics, which I think demonstrates that the page has some validity and usefulness. As for WP:NOTDIR, I don't think that you have demonstrated that any specific paragraph of that policy clearly applies to this list, so as to require deletion. Nor does Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists point to a clear decision the other way. It's therefore up to editors to form a consensus as to whether this page merits retention. You would assist your case if you would demonstrate that a policy applies or is violated, rather than merely asserting it repeatedly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section you point to in WP:SAL doesn't point to a clear decision the other way though: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category" (emphasis in original). No one has demonstrated how any of these people are notable for being reduplicated names, or are regularly given in reliable sources about reduplicated names. Reduplication exists, and some people have a somewhat or completely reduplicated name, but that doesn't mean that these people should be listed together anymore than people with some other characteristic should be listed together, as long as that characteristic hasn't been noted. The fact that the page is still unsourced, and that no one has provided any sources in this discussion either, is not insignificant. Peole have questioned my comparison to the list of names without an E, but I can call it "list of people with lipogrammatic names, and the difference with this list is...? Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can see both sides up to this point, but I don't think there's any particular harm in leaving it. And no I'm not referencing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I have seen some lists on Wikipedia that have survived AfD that were way more trivial and pointless than this is. At least the reduplicated names is conventionally interesting, even to someone with no linguistic background at all (myself in that category). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy based reason for keeping this. "Interesting" is good, but WP:NOTDIR is policy. Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read WP:NOTDIR. I'm not being sarcastic, but which number(s) are you referring to? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1, as explained below. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based argument made for deletion. List appears to be limited to notable entries. I could care less about it, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR is a policy. It is not because a list only has notable entries, that the list is about a notable topic. List of famous pop singers without an "e" in their stage name would also only include notable entries, from Lady Gaga to Jay-Z, but it would fail WP:NOTDIR.
  - I think your comparison makes little sense. Such names (those without an "e") are not unique in any way. Ten of thousand of people would fit under that category. And such a list would be a list of loosely associated topics. But reduplicated names are unique that not many people have them. This list is defined quite clearly that it isn't a list of loosely associated topics. I don't see how WP:NOTDIR is being violated.—Chris!_c/t 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is having no "e" in your name a loose association, but having a reduplicated name not? What has Tintin more in common with Robert Roberts (Christadelphian)‎ than with Lady Gaga (oh, Gaga, isn't that a reduplication as well?). Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic's rationale. And because this is the sort of off-the-wall, but still rules-compliant, list that gives Wikipedia its spark.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not rules-compliant, it violates WP:NOTDIR. There are no scholarly (or even semi-reliable) sources that list some of these together or at first even glance even discusses one of them in relation to reduplication. Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIR is quite irrelevant as that is concerned with the style of commercial directories like Yellow Pages. This is an ordinary Wikipedia list and links notable topics which have articles, so providing a useful index for navigation and browsing per WP:LIST#Navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. A useful index for navigation requires two things, and you ahve argue only for one of them. The list contains notable topics, agreedn but the grouping of them is based on a trivial characteristic. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. All that is required are wikilinks to the listed articles. A clear title help too and this one could use some work but that's just a matter of moving to something like List of people with double names. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel Warden, for useful navigation, you need not only a list of bluelinks, but also a good reason to select this list of bluelinks and not another. Otherwise any page with 50 bluelinks would be, in your reasoning, a useful index, no matter how ridiculous or farfetched the selection. Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the main page, you will find a random article link. For navigational purposes, this is functionally equivalent to a list of random articles. The community seems to think that this is a reasonable thing to have and so we do. The list before us here is not random, nor does it seem especially far-fetched. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list about a notable topic; and I don't see how it violates WP:NOTDIR.—Chris!_c/t 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the topic "people with reduplicated names" a notable topic? Any sources for this? Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have asked for clarification about how this page would violate NOTDIR, stating things like "WP:NOTDIR is quite irrelevant as that is concerned with the style of commercial directories like Yellow Pages." Of course, that is not the section of notdir I refered to. It is #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". It states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic " I think it is quite clear that the entries are not at all famous for those reasons, and that they don't significantly contribute to the list topic. The fact that people without an "e" in their name is a common occurrence, while people with a reduplicated name is a more unusual occurrence, is of no significance if this hasn't been noted in reliable sources. Notable people with the vowel order "ueiee" in their name will probably return a rather short list (Bruce Springsteen), but none of you would argue that keeping it would be good. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sole rationale for deletion is that it is "trivial"? Which is a pure matter of opinion here, and I do not consider it so trivial as to warrant deletion. Nothing else needs be decided on such an AfD. As this is no more trivial than many other articles (I know otherstuffexists does not count, but it does show where the "trivia" line has been drawn in the past) List of people with surname Weeks as an example, I find the default to Keep is reasonable here. Collect (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained further in the discussion, it violates WP:NOTDIR and lacks sources about the topic of the list. List of people with surname Weeks is a disambiguation page, which this one isn't. You are likely to find a reference to someone named "Weesk" without mention of his first name. It's a typical thing with a specialized article, like "He succeeded Weeks as mayor of Windsor", where the reader may want to know more about this "Weeks" but doesn't know that it is about Bert Weeks. Such disambiguation pages serve a clear purpose for the encyclopedia, making the disctinction between articles which could be confused. No such argument can be given for this list. Fram (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Which deals with my weighing of "not sufficiently trivial" untouched. This is a matter of weighing the article on a "trivial" scale, and I find it to pass the test. You, apparently, do not. Collect (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you make of the lack of sources for the topic? Fram (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Boys

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

Contested PROD. As per article, a" never finished" film. Filmmakers and context of failure to complete film disclose no general or film-specific notability. Shirt58 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently the topic is only of interest to people in the film industry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable unfinished film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the failed project does not meet the notability standards for a seperate article as set forth in WP:NFF. And, as it does not have independent notability, at best it might be worth a redirect and mention in the Robert Koltai article, under "failed projects". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated building and security management

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

Seems like pure WP:OR, lacks any WP:RS, and doesn't appear to be a mainstream searchable term. Is this some sort of essay? — Timneu22 · talk 12:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Seems to be an original proposal to create software that will monitor buildings. The article doesn't really create the impression that such software exists yet, and of course the relatively small target market for any such software does not suggest that any such package would ever become a truly notable product: This could be considered as the combination of Physical Security Information Management or PSIM and building automation, which can then all be centralised by a building management software package. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect This topic is already covered by Building automation. I suggest making Integrated building system, Integrated building management and Integrated building and security management as redirects to it, merging any content not already there. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of WP:SYN. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first time I've seen a wikipedia article (or anything really) with only 19 sources in the google result!! Definitely non-notable nor worth the effort of a redirect. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with Sailsbystars, there's nothing here to merge. A personal comment, it's ironic that we're talking about this after stuxnet, speaking as someone who manages a small scale security system for a couple of buildings, the last thing I'd want is those system integrated with the SCADA systems controlling and monitoring the rest of the building's infrastructure. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohair berets

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

No reliable sources, original research for satirical term used by political opponents non encyclopedic. Phrase known only in google by wiki mirrors. Mathiasrex (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Statesman ref is a source for it as far back as 2005. It seems to have just as much credence as the many other minor political labels in ciirculation. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offensive, yes, but that is not a reason to delete. One good source is provided and the material seems to be solid enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a bit of wikifying, but no need to delete. There's at least one reliable enough source. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several mentions in Polish News Bulletin for 2005 and 2006 (eg here and here), which provide reliable sources. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, claims made in nomination ("no reliable sources", "original research"), while doubtless made in good faith, are patently untrue.--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gate2Shop

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

The subject of this article may not meet notability standards. The article reads as self-promotion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Richard Cavell (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same rationale as Speedy Dletion CSD G11: unambiguius advertising. Every source is to its own site or the site of a reseller.--Kudpung (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any sources for this that aren't press releases. Non-notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases show notability in no way because they are adverts from the subject. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Aldridge

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

Subject is the host of a local TV show, and has had bit parts as an actor; also had a totally non-notable career as a journeyman minor-league baseball player--eight teams in five years, including two teams for whom he never actually played. Does not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion--WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:ATHLETE. Horologium (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with nominator: bit parts in entertainment and sports. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find reliable sources to establish general notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I disagree with nominator: this subject is notable, has reliable sources and meets all general notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.159.41 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a total of five sources used in this article, used as twelve citations. Five of them are from the subject's own blog, and three more are from another blog. The citations from Aldridge's blog don't work because they fail Wikipedia's policy on self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. The other blog fails Wikipedia's policy on using third-party blogs as sources: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. Of the remaining three, one simply establishes that he graduated from a university (as have tens of millions of non-notable people); one is a link to a show that he hosts on a local cable network (arguably not an independent source), and the only one which actually is fully independent is a "postcard" from Major League Baseball which states that Aldridge was a security guard who did modeling work and played for a single minor-league team. The external links to baseball cube and baseball-reference list all of the teams for which he was on the roster, but do not establish notability by themselves (as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for baseball players). Horologium (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. There are various independent sources cited in this article. Many articles have been written about the subject in various national publications including local and national newspapers and magazines. Subject is established as extremely notable. — 97.102.159.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE. This article provides reliable sources for the subject and meets all criteria. — 97.102.159.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC).

Comment I have indented and debolded the two previous !votes. They are from the same single-purpose account who has already argued against deletion. The closing admin should note this when closing the discussion. Horologium (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article Subject is notable. This article appears at least to have the minimum number of sources and the subject seems as notable as many other subjects that are currently on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.252.148 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Note: This is the only edit from this IP address. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macaroni and cheese. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix

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

Suggest redirect to Macaroni and cheese. Merge was suggested on the talk page nearly two months ago, with little result. Actually, there is very little, if anything to merge as the topic is not discussed in any of the sources provided. SummerPhD (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix is an archetype convenience food. It would be much more appropriate to merge Kraft Dinner into it. Fred Talk 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I've repeatedly told you, we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources discussing this topic. We have none. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information in this article can easily be included in a section of Macaroni and cheese. --Confession0791 ^talk 00:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove listcruft and merge into macaroni and cheese, I see no reason why this isn't a section within that article. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mac&cheese. No need for separate articles. --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into macaroni and cheese ~~and bake for 30 mins~~. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense to me since the product can be described in one sentence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I'm not sure how useful this title will be as a redirect, though - but redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am unsure what would be merged from this article. The material in it is limited to original research/synthesis (example: various brands "generally share the nutritional values and ingredients" of Kraft, with cites linking to the individual products) and generally share the nutritional values and ingredient), the nutritional info for one variety sold by Kraft and an indiscriminate list of products. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intro only into Macaroni and cheese#Modern and rename section "Packaged dry version."
Merge, without the cruft , into Macaroni and cheese. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per HupHollandHup suggestion above. He iro 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Rossi

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

Previously WP:PRODded, now recreated. Subject is a young reserve goalkeeper (third-choice) for a second division club of Italy with no first team appearances in his career. He therefore fails WP:NSPORT, WP:ATH, and also fails WP:GNG so he is non-notable. Angelo (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Francesco Rosi as a plausible typo. Or delete per nominator's argument.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crealism

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

Article, by its founder Luis de Miranda, about a new "philosophical, artistical, political and existential movement". Text is a copy, with permission, of its website. The references are: a French Wikipedia article on de Miranda, also written by him; his publisher's website; two articles by him (about Facebook, and not mentioning Crealism). There is no indication, and I have found none by searching, of the substantial independent comment about this movement that would be necessary to establish notability, though there is another "Crealism" website about a new "paradigm in Philosophy, Anthropology, Art" by Momir Nikic, who also claims to have coined the term. I am not clear whether these are two movements or one, but neither seems notable. Note that there are many Books hits, but all seem to be mis-scannings such as this. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another self-published load of philosophical musings. Completely fails WP:RS, WP:N and probably WP:lots of other things. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creal is the real name of Life : the vital fluxus in its ever creative becoming. Crealism is the cult of Life as Creal, and the loving respect of the differences that want to emerge to existence. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published, even less coherent than most WP:MADEUP things, no evidence of notability (evidence that anybody else took it seriously might be a good start) bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity page. Roscelese (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Pom Pam

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

No reliable sources and therefore no assertion of notability. Oreo Priest ^talk 09:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. YouTube is not a reliable source. JIP | Talk 12:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems like yet another variant of the tongue twister drinking games (Fuzzy duck, Fizz buzz, Cardinal Puff, etc.) As a group they're notable, but not individual articles on their individual phrases. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't sound very notable, no significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a made up drinking game. I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the author of the article. I understand the source is weak at best but aren't all drinking games made up at some point? I also could not find any other sources than the ones I have given. I tried my best to look through other sources. ChaoticHavok (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find reading WP:N, WP:RS & WP:V clarifies some of this. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability (I don't write this stuff, I'm just reporting it). More straightforwardly, this isn't a news service. The latest fabrications rightly don't get reported, we wait until they're covered elsewhere beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non-notable drinking game. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RSes. There does appear to be an album which might be notable of the same name however. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VicSRC

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

Another user (appropriately) removed PROD, so I'll nominate for AfD. I don't see any evidence that this group is notable. There are no sources except for those published by the group itself. News searches only turn up a few mentions of the full name or its abbreviation, and each of those is something to the effect of "Person X, a member of VicSRC, said ...." Even if Persons X were notable, notability is not inherited by the organization. Finally note that the primary article editor explicitly states on the article's talk page that the organization is small and is unlikely to have outside articles written about, essentially agreeing that the group does not meet notability guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your concern talk:Qwyrxian however I believe your complaint to be invalid on grounds of notability. There are three reputable sources in the references section that reference the VicSRC as an independent body and therefore in someway notable. Nowhere in the article does it state that the group is "small" as suggested by you. The VicSRC page has existed for many years and it is only through trying to expand a stub that I have run into opposition on grounds of notability. I again thank-you for your concern and hope that you revise your decision to nominate the VicSRC as an AfD Mshellie (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that sources have indeed been added. However, sources 1 & 4 are the same (if article is kept, I'll show you how to duplicate the reference without having it show up on reflist twice), and are a publication of VicSRC themselves--thus, as self-published sources, they don't establish notability. Source 2 is, I believe, also supposed to link directly to VicSRC's website, so same problem. The third reference doesn't mention VicSRC, so doesn't actually belong in this article. The fifth site is self-published, and it's just an announcement of a VicSRC event. That also does not establish notability. So, while the article has links, it doesn't have reliable sources of the type it needs to establish notability. What it needs to remain an article are independent, reliable sources, like magazine or newspaper articles, discussions in academic or education journals, or other things of that nature. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian I have looked through the article, there are now seven independent sources mentioning the VicSRC, the events that they do run, that I feel are relevant to the article as they are an awareness organisation. Considering the fact that it is a short article and it does have seven reputable government, school and newspaper sources I would see this to be more than enough grounds for notability. Mshellie (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. I don't know what Mshellie means by "independent sources", but as far as I can see seven sources given are (1) a dead link, (2) a page which merely lists the contents of a publication of VicSRC, (3) several publications of VicSRC, (4) a publication of the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, which includes a brief report on VicSRC's recent activity, written by a representative of VicSRC, (5) an announcement/advertisement for an event organised by VicSRC. I see nothing at all that is independent of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Comment. This article is about an organisation that supports and connects student leadership groups in secondary schools in the Australian state of Victoria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it does appear to be exactly that, and I certainly don't dispute that's it's probably important to the members and maybe even other students in Victoria. However, existence does not imply notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this was not obvious from anything before in the nomination, and the subject is not obvious from the article name either. My comment was mostly for the benefit of AfD patrollers who might be interested. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note If kept, the article should be moved to the organization's full name.

Strong keep. The organization is notable on several counts. Citations have been cleaned and added. • Freechild'sup? 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On several counts", without saying what counts, is not very helpful. I am not sure in what sense the citations have been "cleaned", but we still have no sources which are independent of the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- check the references again. There is a university, an independent organization, and a third-party education publication. • Freechild'sup? 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The independent organization article (on p.14 of that, for those looking for VicSRC) is 1) only borderline reliable, as it's not clear there is editorial oversight, and 2) not actually independent--notice that the article is written in the first person by someone who is also a member of VicSRC. The 3rd part organization, as I stated above, is just an announcement of a VicSRC meeting--by policy, this does not count as significant coverage. The university link does nothing to indicate notbaility--it's just a video of a VicSRC meeting, which again establishes existence, but not notability.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Additional citations added. • Freechild'sup? 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong keepThere are links to independent sources, including government and school sources which are written by independent members of the public about the VicSRC. Notability as with many things is in the eye of the beholder as a side note Wikipedia is used as a reference guide and it is an organisation notable for over 35,000 people and the State Government of Victoria (as sighted when they published a piece on their website, therefore establishing notability) JamesBWatson if you took the time to look through the articles you would find that Connect magazine and others have written about the VicSRC. Mshellie (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. I can't see the relevance of the remark by Mshellie about Wikipedia, but would point out that the word is 'cited' (unless it was unexpectedly espied by someone...). I might be missing something, but cannot see Connect magazine listed there. It is not easy to find in a gsearch, as there are very many Connect magazines. A couple of refs checked at random are just passing mentions - Mr X, member of ... sort of thing. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JamesBWatson, the references in the article all appear to be passing mention or self-published, and I'm not not finding much of anything on google. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of the Kurdish people. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic origins of the Kurds

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Spatulli. This article was changed to a redirect and nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Rather than permit a backdoor deletion, the article has been restored and nominated for deletion here. I am currently neutral on the deletion of this article.

The reason for deletion at RfD was that the term wasn't mentioned in the destination article History of the Kurdish people, which obviously isn't applicable to AfD. –Grondemar 05:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Kurdish people, establishing a new section or sections as needed. Potential content fork here. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
redirect. This is a non-issue. Please do not create unnecessary red tape. There is no reason to delete the redirect, as it contains edit history, and does no harm. There is also no reason to recreate the article, because it is worthless trash. So why not just leave things the way they were (i.e. fixed). --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why do you suggest redirecting without merging?! This is quite senseless IMO - The Kurdish history article has absolutely nothig about genetic ancestry. I really cannot understand your opinion, and your past decision to redirect without merging anything. Spatulli (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Carrite. Redirect would effectively be deletion by another means as the destination article does not contain this material. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are, apparently, parallel articles on Turkic people Origin of the Turkic peoples and Genetic origins of the Turkish people , which makes this a tad difficult to really sort out. Also the proposed destination is at 72K, which means that any merge will likely elide much of this article as being duplicative. so Merge and someone please propose the same for the parallel articles. All share many of the same faults. Collect (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I redirected Origin of the Turkic peoples to Genetic origins of the Turkish people as the former was a duplicate of the latter Spatulli (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the Kurdish people, establishing a new section. There is some well-sourced material that should not be lost. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I hadn't realized that this article had some valuable content. In my opinion, it should be merged selectively, with a removal of all wp:OR/wp:SYN stuff. But it can be made after the merge. Spatulli (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I found this material interesting but it should be contained within History of the Kurdish people. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Articles on the genetic origins of various populations are valuable in and of themselves, and they're not easily integrated into the generic history articles of those same peoples. This article has a number of good references to actual genetic science done on the Kurds and neighboring populations. The companion article on Genetic origins of the Turkish people is much better done, and clearly wouldn't fit well into a general history of the Turks, but that calls for improvement of this article, not deletion. Argyriou (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Python Robotics

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JUSTNOTNOTABLE is a poor justification for a nomination. It's a real project, has been in existence for some years. It couples a mainstream language to a teaching field that's increasingly important in schools. Most of all, it's NSF funded, so there's one big fat irrefutable source for starters. There could be an argument for deletion on the basis of a tiny article describing a project that seems to have stalled in recent years. However "just not notable" has to mean that it's failing our basic condition of reliable 3rd party mention, and that's clearly achieved. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Did the nominator even do a GScholar search? If so, why weren't the dozens of articles mentioned? Did the nominator find them all unreliable? I just don't understand this sort of nomination. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only are their dozens of articles there are also well cited articles the first having 46 cites[17].--Salix (talk): 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, has anyone actually read any of these sources? I note that no one has added any to the article.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Greene, Galloway, Ohio

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

It's a subdivision. Nothing more than a simple subdivision. I suppose that the occasional subdivision may be able to be notable (for example, the Fairhill Road subdivision near Cleveland, Ohio, but that's notable because it's been named a historic district), but this one appears to be entirely normal and lacking in notability. No proper sources have ever been presented in this article's four-year history, and it's always been orphaned. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably could be speedied. Shep^Talk 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivisions are generally considered non-notable unless they pass the GNG or another notability guideline, which this clearly doesn't. It's not even listed in the GNIS. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The material has already been merged to John Symank, so no content is being lost, but the redirect preserves the article history, and there are still incoming links. Once those have been dealt with, RFD for the redirect seems in order. As noted, and as per the dates of first edit, this article appears to be the duplicate, rather than the other way around. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Symank (football coach)

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

This article duplicates the subject material of the John Symank article, and a proposed article merge has been pending since July 2010. All distinct content of this duplicate has been incorporated into the other article . . . it's now time to delete this duplicate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete, just redirect to John Symank. I'd do it but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to know whether his coaching record is worth preserving in the main article. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, not sure what purpose saving a redundant redirect page serves. Original author/creator agrees with AfD. Coaching content has already been incorporated/merged into other article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and handle all pages that link to the old article, most of which are in the coaching navbox (which I've already fixed). A redirect would be okay. I've copied the data over to the main article, but it needs editing and wikified... but that's editing data. Until the remaining pages are fixed to link directly to the article, I think that a redirect is a good solution. I would consider this a procedural delete as technically the aritcle already exists. We're not deleting the article, we're deliting the duplicate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest MacIntyre

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. simply writing 3 plays doesn't get you an article. hardly any indepth coverage. [18]. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to suggest notability [19] Vrivers (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if he was " Sri Lanka's most prominent playwright " he would get a lot more coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason he has limited coverage is because his career spanned the mid twentieth century and has not really been active for the last twenty years. He has written 12 plays and he and E. F. C. Ludowyk are known for the Sri Lankan English theatre.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the sources added and used 4 times does not even refer to subject article http://www.austlit.edu.au/run?ex=ShowAgent&agentId=A%23h LibStar (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The url that is currently there is not responding to the ; which is being left out, but this is the link which is the same as the one in the External links section.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added some references and done a bit of editing. Even if the current references are considered insufficient, I should point out that two the references I have added are reviews of scholarly works in which MacIntyre's works are featured or analyzed. I agree that the coverage of MacIntyre is not deep, but there are a good number of apparently reliable sources that credit him with being an important influence on Sri Lankan drama in the English language. The question is whether notability can be established, and I feel the answer is a clear yes at this point. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of staff at South Park Elementary

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

Nothing but quartenary characters with a few exceptions. The few that are notable can be merged to the character list; the rest should go as they're barely worth a mention. List of students at South Park Elementary was kept in 2009 for God knows what reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List has the practical effect of concentrating what might be a multiplicity of pages to a single page, something that should warm every deletionist's heart... Ultra-notable show, this list includes clearly notable characters along with those who are more obscure. This nomination has the proverbial snowball's chance, BTW, so anticipating a quick snow result here... —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

Additional comment - List has clearly defined criteria for inclusion and is finite. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.

Keep per Carrite's argument. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the powerful (sincere and well-meaning) case made for "keep." Yes the show is notable, that's why WP has an article on it. WHEN WILL FANS GET IT???? Giving excessive details about the object of your fandom is actually harmful to the object of your attentions. Write one medium length article on the show itself. That's all. Then people who want to know more will have to tune in or go the video store etc. to see for themselves. This is better for them and much better for the show. You will also save yourself a lot of wasted time and effort. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I make myself clear? Keep South Park. Delete the other 9,999 related fandom articles from WP.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not rooted in policy. Everything for which notability can be established can have its own article. 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but for the opposite reason - this is a reasonable fork from the primary south park article. Normally, the article on a TV show will list the characters from that show - this article would be part of that list, but for readability and size concerns. It does also prevent the creation of an article for each such character, as well. If there were fewer characters, fewer list articles might make sense - but the show's been on for what, 12 years? I appreciate that haters are going to hate, but this one is a pretty easy call. If you wish to amend policy so that each article on a TV show has a section that reads "The show had characters. There were several of them. They did things;"... then have at. But some information on the characters is reasonable, and that's the function this article fills for the South Park article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if what I said seemed too harsh. Of course the article on the show should say who the main characters are and mention something about the types of minor characters. These are important aspects of the show. What's not needed is a lot of detail about, for instance, the shop teacher. If a person decides to watch the show he/she will find this out for him/herself. If not then it will be of no interest or value to that person. If a person has seen that episode he/she will already know what is given in the article (hence fancruft).Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Encyclopedia: "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but notability is not inherited. Sure, the show is notable, but fictional elements in the show are not if there is no significant independent coverage in sources. As it stands, this is just original research written by the show's fans.—Chris!_c/t 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is little OR on the student list. It has 62 references. Though many (probably a little more than half, I didn't count) are from official South Park sources, there are still plenty independent sources, several of which deal exclusively with characters from this list. 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those 62 references? Clearly there is no inline citations and they are not listed in the article's reference section. Also official South Park sources are not independent sources. If we remove those entries without independent sources, there isn't much info left here.—Chris!_c/t 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 62 references, as we speak, in List of students at South Park Elementary, which is one of two lists (of very different quality, one establishes notability, the other doesn't) up for deletion here. I don't think both lists should be nominated in the same AFD. 96T (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't notice that List of students at South Park Elementary is a part of this afd. The student list has plenty of independent sources, thus it is notable enough for inclusion. But the staff list has no independent sources, thus it is not notable enough for inclusion. So, the student should be kept and the staff list should be deleted, or at least redirect to List of characters in South Park.—Chris!_c/t 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list of not-individually notable minor characters is a reasonable breakout per WP:SS. Delete !voters are not making any new points: no one is claiming that any of these characters are individually notable--lots of pretty WP:IDONTLIKEIT there. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, non-notable minor characters somehow become notable if they are presented in a single list. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. I don't think the keep voters are making policy-based argument at all. They are all just WP:ILIKEIT.—Chris!_c/t 21:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense because that's not what is being said. The show is notable, the list is a reasonable content fork (so WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable), but nobody is suggesting that the individual characters are notable. (And as for WP:ILIKEIT, I've never even seen the show; I'd prefer that we discuss the list on its merits). Jimmy Pitt talk 07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a reasonable content fork doesn't mean the article is notable enough for inclusion. WP:NOTINHERITED is about the notability of the article and is certainly applicable. At any rate, I am only referring to the staff list here. List of students at South Park Elementary should be kept because it has plenty of independent sources, thus making it notable enough for inclusion.—Chris!_c/t 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per UltraExactZZ, who sets forth exactly why this sort of list article is useful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons, but mostly, per Carrite - it keeps the cruft out of the main article and is a clearly defined list. Also per Jimmy Pitt - it is a reasonable content fork. It is a useful list with at least one good cite. Many lists of characters have been created or kept when notability is in doubt but the concept has some supporters, thus no consensus exists to delete it. Finally, it is a list that is useful for our primary audience, i.e., students. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other options, for example, see Monster (manga)#Characters and Mother 3#Characters. However, as with List of characters in The Simpsons, the main article is too long, and per UltraExactZZ, a separate article or list is best. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, someone created Characters of Mother 3 anyway. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the student list at least, as a reasonable fork from List of characters in South Park, as there are too many characters on South Park to cover all on one page. This list is thoroughly references with many secondary sources that establish notability both for individual characters (see for example [20] and [21] for the character Timmy) and for South Park minor characters in general ([22]). One should also note that the list has been purged of non-notable characters several times (see its talk page). 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the staff article, it doesn't establish notability for its characters (the two staff members with established notability, Mr. Garrison and Chef, have their own articles), and it should probably be merged into List of characters in South Park. 96T (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm getting really sick of these "cruft" arguments, "keep South Park but delete all related articles" is like saying "keep Chemistry but delete all articles about elements in the periodic table" or "keep Olympic games but delete all the articles full of data about who won what medals in every sport in every competition". All of this is reliably sourceable, all of this is verifiable, and all of this can be written about from a (real world) neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not paper, and I still fail to understand why going into detail about a highly notable TV show is damaging to the project but going into detail about sports competitions isn't. - filelake shoe 00:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hefner (band). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Remick (song)

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

Non-notable single. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hefner (band).--Michig (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Michig. Shiva (Visnu) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Clifton

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

Non-notable radio newsreader bio. Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of this person. Smartse (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverege found, no sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was previously created as Mitchell Clifton by a likely COI /article subject User:Newsmanmitch, deleted under the WP:BLPPROD rules.The-Pope (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find a single significant source on the man. Non-notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shiva (Visnu) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Garrod

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

Doesn't get coverage in independent sources beyond one article in local news. Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in WP:RS, does not come close to meeting WP:GNG. Pretty apparent WP:COI article based on the creator. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article (and a passing mention in another), both in the same home-town newspaper, do not constitute notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and obvious autobiography. -- role^player 10:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Bruce

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

Asserts notability as co-writer of several notable songs, but absolutely no reliable sources found. The only source is his website, and the only other sources I found online were unreliable or trivial. Gnews turns up only false positives and one article that gives only a one sentence mention. You'd think as the son of a notable singer, there'd be more about him, but alas, it ain't so.

(Note: I wrote the article but don't think it qualifies for G7. Granted, none of the edits from other users are particularly substantial, but it has been around for more than 3 years.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the 2007 Ten Pound Hammer who created this article about the co-writer of three number 1 country songs and not the 2010 deletionist Ten Pound Hammer who wants to blow it up. Writing one #1 song may not confer notability, but playing a part in three of them does... —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.

Neither the 2007 me nor the 2010 me were rabid, slobbering inclusionists... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little challenge for you. Go back over the last 14 (or 30) days of AFDs and count up my DELETE votes versus my KEEP votes. I will bet you 20 American dollars that there are more of the former than the latter. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.

Keep I have added his 2001 Best Original Song Emmy Award along with a source to this article. I will continue to search for more, but the award itself should clear up any concerns about notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hefner (band). Jujutacular ^talk 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devotion Chamber

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

Non-notable album. A similar AfD is at A Better Friend Dondegroovily (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the deletion discussion for A Better Friend is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Better Friend Dondegroovily (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Hefner (band), as article fails notabiliy criteria for albums, but it is a possible search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the solution proposed by Armburst. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrew. (Non-admin Close) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Grzesiak (resistance fighter)

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

Long-term citation issues looked for sources found none. Fails GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subject of a biography book - published in 1981 in Paris and re-published in 1989 in Poland. Polish Wikipedia has a very long article on him, albeit with no in-line citations. Renata (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh Language Bias in Source searching that explains it. I withdraw my nominationThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amiee Shelton

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

Assistant prof at a small liberal arts college, has not even been awarded her PhD yet. Several references and awards, but none establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware of this issue. I am a prof. of PR of a small liberal arts university who has has indeed won several awards for teaching, and have published, speak at engagements etc...all expected of a Professor. I was on television prior to this career, indeed, but I do not have the notability for a dictionary. Thank you Mom of five and the others who added this entry (page?) but I do not think a discussion of my qualifications needs to be made public, and I find it embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRProfesor (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a PhD a required accolade for notability? Look at Michael Scully from the same institution. This page has been up for over three years, and was just update with additional information from what I can see on the history. Why do you now believe it to be unwarranted? The PR awards may seem small, but they are indeed national awards, from a national body of experts.

it may also be noted that students/donors etc use the internet for information concerning their professors, and reputation of institution, this pages allows them to learn about the information from an unbiased source (unlike marketing pages of the institutions). This page presents accurate information. — Momoffive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep-the addition of peer review journal articles and speaking engagement.

"* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

There are sources attached to this entry that address subject, albeit in varying detail. The number of sources, however is above those most assistance professor have as noted by other sites.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

There are numerous sources providing verifiable evaluation. With the addition of published works in all forms- her papers and blog for instance.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Her publications as recently added meet this guideline, as my investigation yielded that the journal is indeed 'peer reviewed', as well as a publicised speaker for PRSA.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

all content provided on this entry appear to bypass these listed items, as some of them are press releases, self-published material or advertising etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're still confusing what counts toward notability – in this sort of case, it's necessary to show impact, as David has explained below. You can add speaking engagements and such, but this is what academics do as a matter of course and, as such, does not figure into impact. Instead, there must be some demonstration that others have "taken note" of this person's work – for example, there are lots of citations to the person's publications, they've solved a major outstanding problem, there are a lot of institutions that hold this person's monographs, etc. We've seen none of that so far, e.g. GS and WoS both show 0 hits, WolrdCat shows no texts, etc. GoogleDocs and conference programs are simply not sufficient support. I'm sorry to say that these are pretty definitive findings. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Art is WP:SPA-created, filled with original research/POV, and makes no credible claim of notability. The strongest assertion is probably being quoted here, but it's only a few talking-points like Shelton "agreed that Facebookers have to be particularly careful with the new 'Places' feature". Art is filled with other trivia that might be mistaken for notability, like student and trade association awards, having a notable student in your class, or presenting papers at a conference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A recent (maybe not even quite yet earned) Ph.D. with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Re Momoffive's comment about "required accolades": it is certainly not required, but in the context of an academic biography the lack of a Ph.D. or more often the recency of a Ph.D. leads to the default assumption that WP:PROF is not yet in reach, since most of the WP:PROF criteria are more aimed at the sort of accomplishments one might expect of a full professor at a major research university. That is to say, we need extraordinary evidence of accomplishment to go beyond this default, and I'm not seeing it in this case. Various minor accomplishments are cited but none of them seem to pass the bar for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A speaking engagement added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell my children that this professor has not had any impact...I do believe they would start a riot. I find it very interesting the other types of entries on this site, yet this particular one has been deemed weak. Adviser of the month for all U.S. Universities is fairly impact(ful?). Only 12 people a year receive that, and that is from all universities with a housing system....thus pretty much all universities. Unless all other entries are examined this carefully, Wikip has lost any respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot see any category of notability that is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, does not seem notable in the general sense and fails WP:PROF. Also, I reformatted some of the text above to improve readability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Seaver Day

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

This does not seem to be an established "holiday" or anything other than something that Gary Cohen concluded at one point. There seems to be no coverage of this. Everything I can find in searching for "Tom Seaver Day" is about his retirement ceremony (which is not the same thing as what's covered in the article). As it stands now, this reads almost like origional research and contains no reliable sources, and seems to be unverifiable. either way (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A play-by-play announcer's remark isn't worth much. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A coincidence of this nature feels like one item of a trivia list being given it's own page, despite a lack of notability. "Did you know that one of MLB's greatest pitchers had great success on April 24?" Woo. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much more than WP:MADEUP. Ma^t_chups 01:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edmonton municipal election, 2010. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Bader (politician)

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, obvious WP:PROMOTION and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117Avenue (talk • contribs)

Delete; as a candidate for city council, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article is basically a résumé for Bader, and thus fails WP:NOTRESUME (whodathunk?). Minimal media coverage; certainly not enough for WP:GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violation of WP:SOAP, doesn't meet notability standards. PK T(alk) 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Edmonton municipal election, 2010 per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Wikipedia sees many of these come election time: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against potential recreation if and when he wins and real sources can be added. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few words into Edmonton municipal election, 2010 as per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, Delete the rest. First time entry into politics and those of us who know the ward know this person's chances of winning this municipal election also close to nil.Bdell555 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location, Bdell555. Ray^Talk 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calgary municipal election, 2010. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naheed Nenshi

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, obvious WP:PROMOTION and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY violations. 117Avenue (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy for copyvio of [23], [24]. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN as the only political experience is being candidate for mayor. It's an obvious WP:SOAPBOX, being a copy/paste of Nenshi's campaign bio (link 1). -M.Nelson (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted by M.Nelson it's obviously a violation of WP:SOAP. PK T(alk) 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Calgary municipal election, 2010 per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Wikipedia sees many of these come election time: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location. Ray^Talk 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Klan (Belgian band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND. Only one album, no clear evidence of notability. Can be redirected to Luc Hensill. Spatulli (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. One album only. Not enough for an article.--Michig (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:MUSIC#5 - band has released two albums on major label.
Wikipedia: Notability (music): Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
* PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL # MPB 3020: The Klan, L.P. Album, Belgium, 1966.
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives.
PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL (BMG is the world's third largest music publisher and the world's largest independent music publisher, UNIVERSAL is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations (from Wikipedia)).
* EMI # 062.64312 : The Klan, L.P. Album, Belgium, 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives.
In 1981, EMI remastered, in Stereo and with a quality enhancement of sound, the L.P. Album of The Klan (Belgian band). The master tape was subjected to further electronic treatment by specialist mastering engineers. EMI released a new version of the Album because the original mastering was Mono. From Wikipedia: "Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release" . Albums References from the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives. New reference: The Klan (Belgian band): Teiji Kusano of Shinko music promoted The Klan (Belgian band) in Japan: "World Music's Roland Kluger Widens Palette Distribution in Israel and Greece", Billboard, November 4, 1967.Raoniz (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Raoniz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Spatulli (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, there's only ONE album and several EP's. I can see there's only one album, "Join Us" of Palette Records. The criteria in wp:BAND says it must have more than one album. Therefore it doesn't meet the criteriaSpatulli (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lengthy comment above me was made by the band's leader's son who is also the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Spatulli (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two different LP albums released by two different Majors label !

And more than that, there are five EP's and from 1950 and until now, you have the LP album, the EP and the Single.

In facts, The Klan (Belgian band) has seven albums released on major label.

From Wikipedia: Extended play: "During the 1950s, RCA published several EP albums of Walt Disney movies, containing both the story and the songs".

"Out of line", E.P (Palette Records, 1966)
"Join Us", L.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Wait and see", E.P. (Festival, France 1967)
"Melody maker", E.P. (Palette Records, 1967)
"Sitting On My Own", E.P. (Supraphon, Tchekia & Slovakia, 1967)
"Sans Toi", E.P. (Palette Records, 1967)
"Join Us", remastered & stereo, L.P. album (EMI, 1981)

Greetings Raoniz (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I repeat: an EP is NOT an album. As a rule, an EP is counted as a single for the purposes of WP:BAND. I removed all the instances where you wrote "E.P. album" as this is wrong to say that. Please see the Extended play article for more information about the differentation between an album and an e.p. For the moment, I see 5 EP's and ONE album. (The second "Join us", which was remastered once, doesn't qualify as being a NEW album). Thanks Again. Spatulli (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Wikipedia article Extended play, the first album was an EP released in 1919. According to Wikipedia article LP record, the first LP only appears in 1931. Raoniz (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wait, how do you conclude from "...The earliest multi-track records, issued around 1919 by Grey Gull Records, were vertically-cut 78 rpm discs known as "2-in-1" records." that "the first album was an EP"? Spatulli (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Wikipedia article Extended play: "The earliest multi-track records, issued around 1919 by Grey Gull Records, were vertically-cut 78 rpm discs known as "2-in-1" records. These had finer than usual grooves, like Edison Disc Records". Raoniz (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You didn't answer my question, but nevermind. Spatulli (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia: E.P. Extended play: "During the 1950s, RCA published several EP albums of Walt Disney movies, containing both the story and the songs. These usually featured the original casts of actors and actresses. Each album contained two seven-inch records, plus a fully-illustrated booklet containing the text of the recording, so that children could follow along by reading".
"Some classical music albums released at the beginning of the LP era were also distributed as EP albums — notably the seven operas that Arturo Toscanini conducted on radio between 1944 and 1954"
Greetings. Raoniz (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:MUSIC#5 - band has released two or more albums on major label.
Wikipedia: Notability (music): Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL # MPB 3020: The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Belgium, 1966.
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL (BMG is the world's third largest music publisher and the world's largest independent music publisher, UNIVERSAL is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations (from Wikipedia)).
EMI # 062.64312 : The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Belgium, 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. In 1981, EMI remastered, in Stereo and with a quality enhancement of sound, the L.P. Album of The Klan (Belgian band). The master tape was subjected to further electronic treatment by specialist mastering engineers. EMI released a new version of the Album because the original mastering was Mono.

From Wikipedia:"Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release".
Note: for the Majors, the market and the Belgian official archives, they are two different albums. Why people would go to buy something they already own? That's why the official Belgian archives have registered two albums. The ordinary re-releases are not registered two times, otherwise the album would be registered at least five times.
Albums References from the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives.

The Klan (Belgian band) has seven albums released on major label:

"Out of line", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Join Us", L.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Wait and see", E.P. album (Festival, France 1967)
"Melody maker", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Sitting On My Own", E.P. album (Supraphon, Tchekia & Slovakia, 1967)
"Sans Toi", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Join Us", remastered & stereo, L.P. album (EMI, 1981)

From Wikipedia: E.P. Extended play: "During the 1950s, RCA published several EP albums of Walt Disney movies, containing both the story and the songs. These usually featured the original casts of actors and actresses. Each album contained two seven-inch records, plus a fully-illustrated booklet containing the text of the recording, so that children could follow along by reading".
"Some classical music albums released at the beginning of the LP era were also distributed as EP albums — notably the seven operas that Arturo Toscanini conducted on radio between 1944 and 1954"

Equipe Internacional # EQI-2001: The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1967. Equipe Internacional was an independent label from Brazil with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable
Teiji Kusano of Shinko music promoted The Klan (Belgian band) in Japan: "World Music's Roland Kluger Widens Palette Distribution in Israel and Greece", Billboard, November 4, 1967.

Greetings Raoniz (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the same argument that is being used in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Hensill and fails WP:BAND for the same reason -- a reissued, remastered album does not constitute a second album for the purposes of WP:BAND. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip W. Rodgers

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

Unsourced since 2007. I couldn't find any references to this person at reliable sources (GBooks just lists his books, nothing on GNews) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently verify the contents of the article. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable about the works or the worker. Anyone can write a book, but that doesn't make it notable. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 Gaza naval shooting

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

Delete, Non notable article about a news story: WP:NOTNEWS. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as news story with no historic importance. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Delete as article is news story. Just another shooting in a conflict area. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please stop nominating articles for deletion the second they are posted; it is ridiculous and tendentious editing. There is no way of knowing if the incident is just a regular news story like dog bites man or a naval incident with international ramifications if the article is not allowed to develop. Indeed, common sense tells us that it will most likely be the latter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, every breaking news story should be allowed to have an article launched and allowed to develop over a protracted period of time because most breaking news will have lasting historical significance if the article on the story is sufficiently developed? I think that's what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. I respectfully disagree strongly on every point... Wikipedia is NOT a source for summarization of breaking news stories, articles on every news story should NOT be allowed to be established and to loiter about, and most news stories have NO lasting historical importance. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.

You are correct regarding most news stories, but this is not "dog-bites-man." This fatal naval incident will most likely have international repercussions that effect the Middle East peace process, and I don't understand how anyone remotely knowledgeable in current events, much less anyone that reads the sources in the article, fails to realize that and runs to either nominate or vote for its deletion withing 5 minutes of the article's creation.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Why rush to create the article? Why not wait and see whether it develops into something more than a short-lived news story and then write the article? Wikipedia will still be here next week, next month ... Breaking news doesn't belong here merely on the strength of your assessment of its long-term significance. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to create the article right away as to develop it properly. The fact that Wikipedia will be here in the future is an argument for waiting till then to see whether it can develop into a valid article, not to have it deleted now. Finally it does not belong because of my assessment, rather it belongs here due its significant coverage in secondary sources. Its the assessment of others, crystalballing that this incident will wind up to be unnotable, that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You wrote above: "This fatal naval incident will most likely have international repercussions..." That is clear use of the crystal ball. So far, it has had no such repercussions; the settlements issue is a far more serious obstacle and this minor naval incident has already dropped off the news radar. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion was supplemental to my policy based rationale that it should be kept because it meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. If anyone is crystalballing, it is those that are arguing that this will eventually turn out not to be a notable event. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the policy-based rationale that it's a news story, which is supported by the fact that a mere four days after the event nothing new is being reported. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the thing, you're making your deletion rationales on the day of the incident, then using 4 days as evidence to your rationale. Wikipedia is not a paper, does not have a deadline, so it makes more sense to rationalize deletes after viewing the incident in a proper context. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It is unclear whether or not this will turn out to be notable enough to meet WP:EVENT guidelines, but I would support closing it for now and revisiting this in another month or so. Linda Olive (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, without prejudice for later recreation. It's sad to say, but this kind of incident in that region of the world is actually about as significant as "dog-bites-man". If it eventually proves to have a more lasting or wide-reaching impact, then we can address it later, though this is probably most comfortably merged somewhere else (not sure where, though). However, as it stands, this is just WP:NOTNEWS, and assuming that it's more than just a blip on the violence radar is WP:CRYSTAL. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - things are not assumed to be notable, it needs to already be a notable event for the article to exist. Saying that it may one day be notable so we should keep the article is a ridiculous thing to say. As of now, this is a news story with not one piece of evidence that it has any lasting significance. nableezy - 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am leaning towards a procedural keep for now. The nomination is by an editor known well for biting newbies, and this is a choice example. However, it may ultimately be deleted per Bahamut0013 as, pardon the pun, dog bites man. ~~You folks decide, but let's keep this debate open for a while.~~ Bearian (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"known well for biting newbies" ??? When? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator and sole contributor of this article, and I'm not a newbie. I know how the system works, and I was aware that there was a good chance this article would get nominated for AfD. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to be swayed by an argument based on ad hominem. A good faith nom or not does not detract from the merits of the article's continued entry in the encyclopedia. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no further analysis or effect indicates this is just news. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; now I see this. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, no evidence of lasting historical significance per WP:NOTNEWS. Gatoclass (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are fish to fry in the Middle East, but this is not one of them. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - this appears to be an unimportant minor incident Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 X Factor (Australia season 2). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Teal

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

Non-notable reality TV show contestant. Suggest redirecting to The X Factor (Australia season 2). Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable yet, but definitely will be in the future, (look at the future NRL players pages i have created who have gone on to become big names, Mose Masoe, Ben Murdoch-Masila, Jared Waerea-Hargreaves, Andrew Fifita .... an so on) it will save me having to create a page for later on when she is famous and for anyone else who thinks this page should be deleted please be aware that almost any page i create is up for deletion! i just dont want to work hard on here for nothing if you's know what i mean, i like seeing the pages i create become famous then i can say i created that :DYB 07:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the X Factor Article. If and when she has some success as a singer we can recreate her article then. I welcome the contributions of User YB but I'd suggest that he create articles when the subjects have sources to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and whatever may happen in the future, the subject is not currently notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to be completely honest, having seen the show, I doubt that she will ever be significant enough to have her own article. Jenks24 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ApNano

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same arguments made in the first AfD are valid in this AfD. Well cited, multiple editors, well cited, google search reveals multiple hits. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP say that it must be have "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This is not the case for the srticle. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How much "significant" coverage do you want? The article cites five references, four of which seem pretty solid and even the fifth, based on a press release, goes beyond mere PR blurb. Google News reveals plenty of significant coverage, including references to funding from the EU and a visit by a Swiss Government Minister. There are 95 hits on Google Books and 61 on Google Scholar (albeit many are duplicates). Seems reasonably notable to me, and nothing has changed since the last (failed) AfD to justify deleting this time. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing in article is a little thin (business week is only major notable source) but others exist such as Ha'aretz [25]. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hits

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

Questionable notability. Nothing but a directory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree to Delete. As a list, it doesn't necessarily need to meet notability requirements, but few of the albums have their own article (thankfully) and they would all have to be individually or collectively sourced to warrant this list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no clear indications of notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wave synthpop

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

A seemingly made up genre. The page boasts four references from fairly marginal sources, using the phrase casually and in passing. There's no substantive coverage anywhere, and nothing at all from any serious music sites or publications. Most interestingly, the page makes the specific claim that the phrase was first coined by “Oregonian synthpop musician Mimzy”. If we then go to this non-notable individual’s Myspace page, which is cited as a reference, a post dated 18 Sept claims that “I coined the term ‘second wave synthpop’ on Wikipedia to describe a style I’ve noticed”, which seems to suggest that we are dealing with a rather bizarre and circular piece of original research. The original Category page was created in December 2009 by User:DriveMySol, who would appear to be another rather obvious sockpuppet of User:OregonD00d/User:Tiramisoo, looking at their focus on synthpop, fashion and decadeology. And the former’s previous bid to create a page for – guess who – Mimzy. The fact it has appeared in a couple of other spaces since being invented here simply implies it’s been picked up by people skimming WP, rather than it being a real thing in the real world N-HH talk/edits 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. I cannot find substantial use of the term, or a definition of what this represents. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MADEUP --Michael White^T·C 04:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up term. No reliable sources. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Gravity

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

This article is not much different from Disney's Tall Tails which I have also nominated for deletion. This comic does not seem to show much notability either. It consists of only a few short sentences in the opening paragraph and a section on the characters in the comic. This article is alao a WP:STUB and is unsourced lacking any verification and attribution. It only has one external link (The official Kid Gravity website) As suggested in the article, it also appears to lack any significant coverage. This comic has only been a part of Disney Adventures and it ought to be merged (or redirected) to that article since it does not seem worthy of its own article. trainfan01 9:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disney Adventures. The subject does not appear to be independently notable: the only references I can find are a passing mention in The librarian's guide to graphic novels for children and tweens and a paragraph here by the comic's creator, Landry Walker. Neither is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gel-Pak

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

PROD contested (though no improvements made). No assertion of notability, I made a reasonable search for significant coverage in RS's but no joy. Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search suggests that the parent company, Delphon, might (or might not) be notable - but this division of he company is not. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per "this-is-nothing-but-a-really-well-made-advertisement" and "blatantly-made-by-the-company-itself" also, not seeing notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hala 'o Vave

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

The author Lolopapalangi/Anacrossan have used this article Talakaipau to insert her own claim for the Namoa as King story in which editors have agreed and deleted the Namoa article for WP:Verifiable WP:Sources WP:Original research.

The Articles Nuku'alofa, Hala 'o Vave, Kolomotu'a, Talakaipau are all vehicles used by the same author to make the riculous claim that was deleted in the Namoa article. We have amended the Nuku'alofa and Kolomotu'a articles and the Namoa article was deleted after the AfD discussion. Hala 'o Vave, Talakaipau and other articles may be used by the author to host her discredit claim that was deleted before by the editors consensus.

In that case, this article is only a vehicle for the same claimed that was deleted for after three years no one can verified Anacrossan claims and she did not even verified her claim with inline citation.Puakatau (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, I don't understand the nomination, or the backstory about other articles. But I do understand that this article is unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice to a new AfD nomination with a coherent rationale for deletion. The nomination, as far as I can understand it, appears to be describing a content dispute covering several articles about Tongan history rather than any clear reason why this particular article should be deleted rather than edited. In response to MelanieN, this does have four sources listed, so can't be said to be unverifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 years without inline citation

WP:Verify That means there is no citation and sources.
WP:Sources The sources does not support the article, this is more of an original research.
WP:NPOV The article is biased to a discredit claim of Namoa as King.
WP:Note Is it important to keep? This is an area of suburb of Nuku'alofa

delete; The article is a host for a discredit claim and was created in bad faith.Puakatau (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soq

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

Dubious notability, distinctly WP:SOAPy, no reliable sources Letdorf (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source of the information is not available, no updates since 2007. According to the article, the software in question didn't even get the commercial release. Ezhuks (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero reliable and unreliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Antarctic Territory

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

There is no such thing as the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory". The article has no sources, and I have never come across any sources that make mention of the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory". Instead, Norway has three separate dependencies located in the Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic. A Google search turns up either derivatives of Wikipedia or the term used as a description (such as "the Norwegian Antarctic territory of Dronning Maud Land"). An overall discussion of Norwegian dependencies can be done at List of possessions of Norway. As further evidence it can be noted that there is no article on this "territory" on either of the Norwegian Wikipedias. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a matter of terminology, some English-language sources modelling their usage on British Antarctic Territory. For example this comes right up on search. And here's a book doing the same and here's a borderline usage. (And I note that Swedish Wikipedia uses the same term.) Obviously there's a political issue complicating matters, since there is disagreement about the validity of this and other Antarctic claims. But the article seems to be redundant, better turned into a redirect to a section of the Antarctic Claims article. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article serves a useful purpose in bringing together in one place the three Norwegian territories and could easily be expanded. The fact that the title "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" is not official is irrelevant; neither is "Argentine Antarctica", but to avoid confusion the article could be renamed as "Norwegian Antarctic Territories" (which, while no more official, is more accurate descriptively) or "Norwegian Antarctica". Jimmy Pitt talk 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree that it might be a useful place to tie together the three "Norwegian" territories in the Antarctic, even if we don't need much more than a disambiguation page. One of the first google results I got was [26] which conveniently lists the three territories on the right. I'm not sure that List of possessions of Norway is a better place to put these things, as that is mostly an unstructured article about territories conquered by Norwegians a very long time ago in the Northern hemisphere. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it ties things together, we can't circumvent WP:OR. If the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" is not a truly established term elsewhere, it cannot be an article here. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per above comment. The problem is that "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" sounds too official. Norwegian Antarctic territory (without the capitalisation of the last word) would be better. But it certainly represents a well-defined area. St Anselm (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanomedicine (book)

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

Delete. Non-notable book series. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is written in a promotional tone and provides no evidence of notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Racing Team ERT

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

Racing team that does not appear to have ever actually participated in any races. Article appears to be written in a way that is entirely promotional. Website is infested with malware according to Google Chrome. Drdisque (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very promotional article; I do not see any WP:RSs. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a few links as sources, looks like a promotial article. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baman Piderman

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

Fails WP:WEB. Only sources are YouTube. Nothing at all on Gnews, nothing reliable found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB by a mile, no coverage ABOUT this web cartoon found anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is coverage outside YouTube, for example [27]. --antiXt (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly OR, certainly not notable. The link provided by antiXt is to a blog that itself links to YouTube. It come nowhere near satisfying the requirement for significant independent coverage. Jimmy Pitt p.s. i pooped my pantstalk 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barometer question

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

I don't see how this is notable, it seems like an essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced original essay, and an orphan article to boot. What is one gonna do, make this a "See Also" under barometer??? Carrite (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If referenced, I think it could be merged into Barometer. Otherwise, it's an unreferenced essay-type article. Nolelover 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As East of Borschov has totally rewritten the article. Nolelover 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs cleanup but this is a famous question (I've heard of it before in several contexts) and really not mergeable with the main article on "barometer" because that ought to concern the standard use of the barometer to measure pressure, and this article is concerned with non-standard ways (e.g. the "Bohr method"). Usually I'm not a big fan of "in popular culture" trivia, but I think in this case, the named examples (which probably deserve to be treated as awfully formatted references) do prove that this article is describing a phenomenon notable in its own right. TheGrappler (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an urban myth, but one that some sources (Snopes quotes The Readers Digest from 1958) suggest it's been in circulation for 50 years making it a notable urban myth (assuming such a thing is possible). Definitely not capable of merging into Barometer as it has nothing to do with barometers paradoxically. It needs to be written as a description of an urban myth and referenced accordingly (i.e., to where the myth appeared or was repeated) rather than referenced to the mythical source. That is, you're never going to find a reference to Bohr actually being the student in question because it's a myth. QU ^TalkQu 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I rewrote the article (sort of) and removed the aforementioned "1958 Readers' Digest" link. This is something that needs hard reference to the original source; if not, it's as reals as the Niels Bohr story. Not a blog, not a snopes, the real Readers Digest if it ever existed. So far I've located a 1969 publication; there's mention of a 1961 book which I didn't see myself. Old, but not quite. East of Borschov 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here' a source from 1959 [28]. I'd rather not put it in article yet; need more assurance that this scanned paper has been correctly dated. East of Borschov 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. Falls under category AYFKMWTBS? Single reference is to a work of fiction -- a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live. Really? I mean, a fictional reference? Really? AYFKM? Burn it in a fire. Soon. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very famous geek question, and legend, and has a long and widespread history (as the fact that SNL picks up decade later on a Reader's Digest story tends to show). It's got the same sort of presence within a vocation (this one being science and scientific creativity) as The Aristocrats (joke) has among comedians. Nightspore (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous science question which predates SNL by decades. Edison (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does every old quip, query, or anecdote merit a Wikipedia page then??? Just because a joke is old doesn't make it worthy of encyclopedic coverage, does it? —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

It's not a joke. I was asked this Q once. The interrogator was a well-known inventor of pressure sensors and collected answers to the Barometer Question just for fun. She usually meant mercury barometers, which ruled out many "just toss it" options. The infamous Manhole question which is part of Manhole (a very short start-class article) is not a joke either. keep. East of Borschov 12:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: part of Manhole cover. East of Borschov 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second option: rename to Angels on a Pin, keep original title as a redirect. East of Borschov 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=D Nolelover 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of references that has been added to the article (presumably as a result of this AfD) demonstrates pretty effectively that it's an encyclopaedic topic, and provide enough of a basis to improve the article. --ais523 18:16, 28 September 2010 (U T C)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Unified Junior Heavyweight Championship

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

Championship in a company that fails WP:CORP (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River City Wrestling). References provided are not reliable third party sources and do not help establish notability. Nikki♥311 01:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at that deletion discussion on River City Wrestling, but it seems as though most of the links to references are to a Texas promotion by the same name. If the article that was deleted was on the Texas promotion by the same name, then it's totally unrelated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [29]. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Aleckson

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

Non-notable racing driver/owner only participated in amateur races. Fails WP:NSPORT/Motorsports. Drdisque (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Appears to fail Wikipedia:NSPORT#Motorsports, although I'm not familiar with racing. Also, article is unreferenced, and written like an ad and by someone with a COI. There are some sources, but I wouldn't put much stock in any of them. Nolelover 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castelldefels Rugby Union Club

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

Non-notable minor league rugby team, no sources. Article consists of nothing more than an info box and the text "To be done," and has stayed this way for almost a month since its creation. 2 says you, says two 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, non notable team. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CLUB as well. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District

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

A small sub-district that is probably not notable. There does not seem to be articles for this type of agency for any other US state. The same applies to Southern Rhode Island Conservation District and Northern Rhode Island Conservation District. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be improved, a few of these seem relevant: [30] [31] riffic (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the links supplied above by Riffic are indicative of notability. I do not see any evidence of notability elsewhere, either. Concur with nominator's argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if rewritten/sourced, or Merge with the other two Rhode Island Conservation Districts as proposed at the three articles. These articles could use a major rewrite - as it is they don't even assert notability. But as Riffic noted this district gets a lot of coverage, not all of it trivial or passing - for example [32]. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is about a federal government department, and no other state has such articles. This only is against notability. The notability is NRCS. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new argument: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST! 0;-D I don't know what NRCS means. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NRCS is the National Resource Conservation Service, a division of the US federal gov't. East Rhode Island Conservation District is a sub-division of NRCS. Thus it's NRCS that is notable, not this little sub-division. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I suppose this article could be redirected there, somewhat as is done for local chapters of a notable organization. But in terms of coverage by outside independent sources, I find very little for the Natural Resources Conservation Service - less than I found for this branch. In that sense it seems that this local branch may have more "notability" than the parent bureaucracy does. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give Thanks (VCD)

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

This album does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. There is already an article for Give Thanks, this VCD rerelease does not seem to have any significant coverage of its own independently of that album. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a rerelease, but the artist released the VCD with the same title of one of his CDs. Since this album is only available in Asia Pacific, others are not familiar with this album, so not much sources about this album from other websites other than the countries in Asia Pacific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.5.175 (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This VCD does not appear to be the same as the CD covered in Give Thanks, at least based on a quick review of the tracklist. I think the nominator's description of the topic as a "VCD rerelease" is inaccurate. They seem to be wholly different works. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected; thanks (and thanks to the anonymous editor just above) for the clarification. However, this is not essential to the debate here, the point remains that the subject of this article does not seem to have significant coverage of its own. ErikHaugen (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is planned to be removed, I may add this to Give Thanks page, even though the VCD release is different from the CD of the same title. User:Park john u (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Give Thanks album. --Plantron (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OhZee

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

GNews, GHits, et al, produce no results for this producer. I will also be nominating his supposed partner, Schife, and am considering nominating their label. The article barely passes CSD standards insofar as it claims notability based on collaboration with the, as far as I'm concerned, non-notable Schife. Hence my bringing this to AfD and not CSD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or merge to Schife, as a clearly not notable, unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NN, WP:RS. -Selket ^Talk 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schife

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

Related to my nomination of OhZee. I cannot find any reliable, non-trivial coverage of this producer. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this would be better as a source for merger of all the other related articles. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability/importance here. Some of the artists he is "involved with" have notability, but he is just a cog in the machine, and not all cogs are notable. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karbeen Muzik

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

Related to my AfD nominations of Schife and OhZee. I cannot find any reliable, non-trivial coverage of this record label in secondary sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or if need be, merge to Schife. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hecatonchires (GPU Family)

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

No multiple source for this article, most of the cited source is from Fudzilla with several sites that mirror that source only. And the other two sources are unrelated from the codename "Hecatonchires". AMD64 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --AMD64 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many sources are skeptical that there is a family of GPUs codenamed "Hecatonchires", calling it rumour and speculation. I believe WP:CRYSTAL is a relevant policy here. While I would reconsider if these GPUs were a notable rumor, this is not the case. Most mentions of these GPUs are routine fanboi forum threads, not anything remotely RS. Fudzilla is also a dubious source as well — the tech world equivalent of a trashy gossip or tabloid publication, no? Lastly, I suggest that the Find sources template not be used — this is the second time where I have participated in an AfD where the template was given an implausable Invented-for-Wikipedia-for-Disambiguation-Purposes^TM name that no one uses to search for. Rilak (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - There is or was an ATI based GPU code name Hecatonchires but AMD may have changed plans due to the 32nm process being cancelled. They may have been forced to scrap its Hecatonchires plans either permanently or just postponed in the meantime. I am sure more information will surface once Northern Islands GPU gets talked about more. I would hate to see this page deleted. I recommend we keep it in the meantime for 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt300 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced therefore unverifiable. As to the above argument as to what AMD may do in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talakaipau

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

The author Lolopapalangi/Anacrossan have used this article Talakaipau and Hala 'o Vave to insert her own claim for the Namoa as King story in which editors have agreed and deleted the Namoa article for WP:Verifiable WP:Sources WP:Original research.

The Articles Nuku'alofa, Hala 'o Vave, Kolomotu'a, Talakaipau are all vehicles used by the same author to make the riculous claim that was deleted in the Namoa article. We have amended the Nuku'alofa and Kolomotu'a articles and the Namoa article was deleted after the AfD discussion. Hala 'o Vave, Talakaipau and other articles may be used by the author to host her discredit claim that was deleted before by the editors consensus.

In that case, this article is only a vehicle for the same claimed that was deleted for after three years no one can verified Anacrossan claims and she did not even verified her claim with inline citation.Puakatau (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the creator is trying to remove the AfD tag on the page. Drewbug (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Talakaipau and Hala o Vave are neutral and fact based! Puakatau stupid and false claim that it is used as vehicle to assert claim for Namoa as King is another false claim of Puakatau. I have mention on various times that Namoa was the the childhood title of Tupou. Tupou was later known as Siosaia Tupou. Is Puakatau too dumb to understand that Tupou in his adult life, therefore he will be only known by early missionaries and documentations as Tupou! Tupou who later known as Siosaia Tupou was the owner of his heredidary residence Talakaipau. His own heirs still hold and registered as title holder and owner of Talakaipau Residence !

It was not Aleamotu'a who own Talakaipau but Siosaia Tupou( Namoa) who own Talakaipau and his heirs are still the owners of Talakaipau residence to this date!

Why Puakatau twisted the truth and facts and try to made out that Aleamotu'a is Siosaia Tupou? Stop the lies, Puakatau,because never in any early records in Tonga was ever recorded that Aleamotu'a was Siosaia Tupou, never. It's only Puakatau own rubbish claims who fill in the dots and pretends that Aleamotu'a is Siosaia Tupou! What a joke.

In regards to this threatened to delete this article, as according to the objectives of Puakatau! What are you waiting for ? Delete !! I don't give a damn!!

Anacrossan (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Sources that contradict your claim

These are an independent verification of what I have come to conclude, that Aleamotu'a was known as Tupou or Josiah (Tonganised as Siosaia or Sosaia) Tupou. Talakaipau ownership is Taufa'ahau and still the current King.

1. "Josiah Tupou, bapitised thus in 1830 (Lawry 1850:238). Was also named Aleamotua and Tupouifaletuipapai (Gifford 1929:87). In 1826 he was appointed as Tui Kanokupolu – the hereditary title of the present King of Tonga – and he died in 1845."

By: Schütz, Albert J, The diaries and correspondence of David Cargill, by David Cargill, 1832–1843; 1937 ,page 26

2. "Aleamotu‘a’s main worry was that the non-Christian chiefs would reject him as the possible successor to the title of the Tu‘i Kanokupolu. He was installed on 7 December 1827 as Tu‘i Kanokupolu but continued worshipping in secret. However six months later he determined to confront the intimidation of the non Christian chiefs and began to attend worship publicly. He was baptised on 10th January 1830, taking the name of Josiah, together with his three sons and two daughters in the presence of a congregation of six hundred at the chapel in Nuku‘alofa."

By: Niumeitolu Heneli T. , The State and the Church, the state of the Church of Tonga, 2007; www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, page 129

3. In September 1833 Thomas complained of Aleamotu‘a extending his rule to the church, “Tupou has behaved as though he wished to be a Pope,” he wrote.

By: Niumeitolu Heneli T. , The State and the Church, the state of the Church of Tonga, 2007; www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, page 131

4. “Le Vicaire apostolique n'hésita donc pas à descendre dans la grande île avec le P. Chevron; et, comme l'usage le demandait, il alla d'abord à Noukou-Alofa, où, sous le titre de Toui-Kano-Kopolou, résidait celui qu'on regardait comme le chef de la féodalité tongienne, sous la haute suzeraineté du Toui-Tonga. Le titulaire du moment était Aléa-Matoua, appelé Sosaïa depuis son baptême wesleyen ; son nom a été prononcé dans l'exposé de la guerre de Péa.”

By: Monfat A, Les Tonga; ou, Archipel des Amis et le R. P. Joseph Chevron de la Société de Marie, 1893, page 184

5. This group of Tahitian, with their checkered record, formed a significant bridgehead at Nuku'alofa for the entry of the Wesleyan, whose discouragement border on despair, until they found in Aleamotu'a (Tupou) at Nuku'alofa the chiefly sponsored they needed.

By: Garret John, To Live Among the Stars; Origin of Christianity in Oceania, 1982. page 71

6. Fale Tuipapai: Houses laid out in order. The vault, in which is buried King Josiah Tupou (Aleamotua), in the cemetery ...[fale, house; tui, placed; papal, laid out in order].

By: Willowdean Chatterson Handy; 1922; Tattooing in the Marquesas; ‎Page 56

CAN YOU PROVIDE VERIFICATION FOR YOUR CLAIM?Puakatau (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Discussion to see if this article is worth to keep

Anacrossan, this is a discussion to see if this article is verifiable and true. The AfD is to force you to verify your claim as truth and not biased. It has been years and your claimed has not been verified by any sources. What we found out is that these sources contradict your claim.. So you should have your say why your story is true then verify it with something like a first hand account published by people who were at these events. READ THE REFERENCES Puakatau (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's calm down, please. This article appears to be about a residence used by the King of Tonga. The question for this AFD is whether such a residence is notable, and - if so - whether there are reliable sources to show that it is notable. I don't know how this AFD relates to previous AFDs on other articles, but we're not here to debate that - we need to discuss this article and its merits. For my part, the article needs a lot of cleanup, but that's not a deletion issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essence of the article

The article title is about a Residence belong to the King of Tonga, however, the article claimed that it belong to another family who were King is totaly false and not supported by any citation.

The claimed that Namoa was a King is false and have not been verified with any inline citation. The Namoa article was deleted after three years with no inline citation and AfD discussion.

The Namoa was King claim were inserted in various article by the same author and it has been 2-3 years with no inline citation in these various article.

This conclude that this article should be deleted as it is false and wrong as it does not have any citation for verification. Puakatau (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to a further nomination with a coherent deletion policy-compliant explanation of why this should be deleted. The nominator has only described a content dispute, rather than giving any reason why this article should be deleted rather than edited. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 years without inline citation

WP:Verify That means there is no citation and sources.
WP:Sources The sources does not support the article, this is more of an original research.
WP:NPOV The article is biased to a discredit claim of Namoa as King.
WP:Note Is it important to keep? The only important thing it is a place where cooking are done for the Royal Family.
delete; The article is a host for a discredit claim and was created in bad faith. Puakatau (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NB The above !vote comes from the nominator. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced therefore unverifiable. If the sources actually exists, then the proper publishing information is missing. I am completely in favor of giving people time to gather their sources, but two years is about twenty-two months too long in my book. Burn it. Salt if necessary. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, the online reference provided (above): http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, does not even contain the word "Talakaipau" or its listed variant "TALA KIAI KUOPAU." I fail to see how the reference provided is at all relevant to the issue at hand. It tests the limits of the assumption of good faith. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm moving it to the incubator. (link) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Vidović

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

This is an unsourced BLP, and while there is some indication of notability, there's no sign of sources, tagged since December 2007. Triona (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My Croatian's not so good, but Google Translate offers a source: [33] The article itself lists some reviews from Tribune de Genève, although they're not formatted as references. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both the Nacional source given above (now included in the article) and the search at http://www.concoursgeneve.ch/index.php/en/the-prizewinners.html confirm that he won the guitar 1st prize in the 1988 Geneva International Music Competition. Arguably this means that the article meets WP:MUSICBIO #9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorB (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 September 2010

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lynyrd Skynyrd. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Honkettes

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

Questionable notability. No reliable, non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Lynyrd Skynyrd - see for example Billboard, Everitt, Watts. Not sufficiently notable for their own article but worth a mention in the Skynyrd one.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses Route 969

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

Another bus route article that offers nothing as to how WP:GNG is met. Nothing in the way of references are provided and none appear to available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London, which is what we usually do with the non-notable ones (see here). No evidence of notability; Google gave me nothing reliable beyond the odd passing mention, and even Buses Magazine haven't covered it in any reasonable detail. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London per above. No indication this merits its own article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus routes 1, 2 & 5

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

Another bus route article that offers nothing as to how WP:GNG is met. Nothing in the way of references are provided and none appear to available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not having references is not a reason for deletion. Jeni ^(talk) 00:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not having references is not the reason for deletion, although Wikipedia:Verifiability does require them. The reason for deletion is failure to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bus routes are not notable; and that is certainly a valid reason for deletion.—Chris!_c/t 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1) Not having many, if none, references is not a reason for deletion. 2) Saying this isn't notable is like saying that Arriva Midlands or Choice Travel is not notable. It takes a idiot to want to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudleybus (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good argument to make on a deletion debate.—Chris!_c/t 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look here Chrishomingtang, as Jeni said, and I reliterated, Not having many, if none, references is not a reason for deletion. The 351 (former) was one of the last services to have a Leyland Lynx operation AND one of the last few services to have a constant MCW Metrobus operation. Since then it went to Optare Solo vehicles and Volvo B6LEs until its withdrawal in 2010 due to the North Walsall Network Review. Service 1 was one of the last few services to be operated by Chase coaches until they sold out to Arriva Midlands. Service 2 was initially set up to compete closely with service 351 and actually took over most of Arriva Midlands service 351 tendered journeys. User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 08:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lack of sources alone is not a valid reason for deletion. But sources are used to establish notability. So, if sources can't be located, then it is likely that the subject isn't notable. All I said was that because bus routes aren't notable per WP:GNG, it should be deleted.—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see why these particular routes have been grouped together. I usually support keeping bus route articles (I've even written one, The Witch Way), but until this gets a proper introductory paragraph explaining what links them it looks like synthesis. This is compounded by the lack of sources, which causes notability issues. And why is the 351 the first route to be mentioned when it isn't even in the title? This article offers more questions than answers in its current form. Given all the issuses, I have to say delete - although I very much hope someone can convince me to change my mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find independent reliable sources to establish notability. Also WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Without sources, the subject fails WP:Verifiability. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan spice rub

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

Unreferenced (the one link provided appears to be a search link, and the domain itself has been cybersquatted) and with practically no salvageable content. The problem with this and similar articles was brought up with the author over four years ago at User talk:Mina213#Afghan dishes. Inbound links are exclusively through see also sections or {{herbs and spices}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listing on AfD log for the first time on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel like I should be !voting keep to counter WP:Systemic bias, but there just aren't the sources available to me to support it. Anyone speak Dari (Persian) or Pashto? Bigger digger (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found a New York Times article with a recipe which I added as a reference. A Google search does turn up quite a few recipes in English. My 'keep' is weak more because of WP:NOT, but on the other hand, WP can and should be a springboard to other resources, such as the cookbook. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I found that too, but I can't get away from the requirement to meet WP:GNG. If you do a search for jerk seasoning or Chinese five spice you get sources falling off the page - look at all the cook books in a Gbooks search - but practically nothing for this. Bigger digger (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for sources, and could find none. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IWA East Coast Heavyweight Championship

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

Championship in a company that fails WP:CORP (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWA East Coast). Nikki♥311 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to recommend merging with IWA East Coast, but that article was deleted on Sept. 18, 2010. Might as well delete the equally non-notable subsidiary articles while we are at it. Racepacket (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Tall Tails

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

This comic may star three of the Fab Five (Mickey, Goofy and Donald), but that is not enough for notability. This article consists of only a few short sentences and is both an WP:ORPHAN (hardy any articles are linking to it) and a WP:STUB. It is also unsourced and lacks any verification and attribution. It also has no significant coverage either (as suggested in the article). Consistent that that this comic is only a part of Disney Adventures it ought to be merged (or redirected) to that article since it does not seem worthy of its own article. trainfan01 8:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I couldn't find much in the sourcing department (somebody with better google fu might have better luck) but we do not delete articles for being stubs or orphans. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's true that we don't delete articles for being stubs or orphans, but we do delete articles for non-notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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