Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 21

< 20 August	22 August >

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 merge to

Juventus F.C. statistics and records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Juventus F.C. honours

)

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

Per WP:Footy consensus is to merge this into the relevant

records article. At least that's the impression Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 23:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 23:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Then
be bold and merge it, with the title as a page redirect. No need for the AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the nominator suggested...Giant Snowman 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per nom.
^talk 19:12, 22 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Majidi

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, a journalist/news broadcaster, to sufficiently establish

WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: There is another Arash Majidi, a TV actor, which is more notable than this. Your link don't work.Farhikht (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: no evidence of notability, seems like self promotion. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:59, 22 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Luke

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

Fails the notability guidelines for authors, artists and the general guidelines. The only search results from Google and Google Books are self promotion or appear to be self-published. No verifiable independent reliable sources are available. The article was created in 2008 with a number of editors contributing, so there seems little prospect of this being addressed in the near future. The same BLP was deleted in 2007 but got resurrected. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reviews on a couple of independent web pages are better than nothing, but it's a long way off meeting
WP:CREATIVE. And the author of the article being "Drew Luke" doesn't help. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - lacks the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 24 August 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. Tone 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidul Islam (journalist)

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

Journalist of questionable notability. There are lots of people of this name, but searching for "Shahidul Islam" + "Hindustan Express" only returns self-published stuff on web search. A news search returns this, in which he is mentioned in passing, plus his blog, the content of which anonymous IPs have tried relentlessly to add to the article. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Third party RS coverage not found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question does he write in English, or another language? It could be our web searches are a rather blunt tool. --Dweller (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, answered my own question. He writes in Urdu. I'd question the use of Googling in English characters for ascertaining notability. Anyone know how to search in Urdu? --Dweller (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable journalist.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are sources online that support the size and notability of the newspaper and Islam's role as news editor. However, these particular sources are also identified as malicious and according to WP policy should not be linked. It also appears as though there have been earlier articles of this subject that were deleted. The original author of this article is the subject, identified through a sock investigation. With no other reliable sources identified, I would recommend deleting the article. Cindamuse (talk) 13:43, 23 August 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 as hoax on the basis of multiple editors' unanimous investigations. Jclemens (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Duncan

)

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

As far as I can determine, this appears to be a

hoax. I can't find any confirmation of this saint's existence, and the cited source doesn't seem to discuss the subject. Based on the other edits of the contributors, I suspect this is a school prank of some sort. Of course, I could be wrong, so if anyone else can verify that there is a Saint Duncan from Ardwell, I will be happy to see the article improved and sourced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - does appear to be a hoax, I don't think there is a Patron Saint of the Bankrupt.--Utinomen (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no St. Duncan according to the excellent resource found here. Moreover, I doubt that the single given reference is correct: although the book is real and Lawrence Cunningham is a respected Catholic writer, the cited title is conveniently unavailable for view online. Fortunately, however, we can still view the Contents page which lists the given citation (p.57) as part of a chapter on the Protestant Reformation ("The Age of the Reformers"). I highly doubt that the biography of a 12th-century saint would be there. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think it is a hoax. The book is available on Google Books [Brief History of Saints] and P57 has no mention of Saint Duncan, nor indeed does that book, nor any of the books in Google Books. scope_creep (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment British History Online has no mention of it either. scope_creep (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a hoax. Is not mentioned in my copy of A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West. Nor is it mentioned in the given reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 August 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. Tone 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Shame, Trauma, or Sexual Abuse on Sexuality

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

Essay, not an encyclopedia article (especially under this title), looks like it might have been copied from somewhere else, or else this is somebody's research topic. Even the User name, WriteEssay, indicates this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't an archive for essays. Even the username that created it says it all for this particular one, WriteEssay. Part essay, part how to guide, no part Wikipedia encyclopaedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. Too well referenced. That might sound daft, but the referencing here is higher academic level, which suggests that that is where it came from - and belongs. But then again... I found this: "For help with research based projects and essay writing projects: http://www.qualityresearch.org.uk http://www.writessay.com http://www.customtermpaper.org http://www.marketingwebbusiness.com" which could lead to thoughts of spam. Especially as these same links were found in the External Links - and removed as spam by another editor. (They must have missed this bit just above the references.) I'm wondering if a Speedy might be in order, with the creator's username taken into consideration... Peridon (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Based on the author's username (
advertisement. — C M B J 22:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I did wonder if they were connected. My supper got in the way of investigating... Peridon (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for
original research
. Bearian'sBooties 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Unwikified original essay. This seems to be a first effort of a new contributor who may not be aware of rules and standards and it might be good if one or two mentoring types got in touch with him and let him know what went wrong here. Learning to pick a topic and to write to WP style isn't something one is born knowing, after all... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the links at the end are flagrant advertising and it's pretty clear that this is intended as a free taste for potential customers. Carrite (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty poor example, then. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatent advertisement and spam. Turgan ^Talk 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 August 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. Tone 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Zora

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

Artist with no evidence of notability.

^Talk 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nomination. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 23:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails
notability criteria for artists. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 August 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. Tone 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.s. travel magazine

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

Non-notable magazine, no claims of notability, no sources, bad capitalization. There doesn't appear to be a speedy deletion category for magazines. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It's not
WP:SPAM (CSD G11), but it's not a notable magazine, and there are no sources cited. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - it probably is spam and it has the stink of copyvio but I can't find the exact text elsewhere. Regardless it's not a notable magazine. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being of a nasty turn of mind (if I didn't say it, someone else would...), I tend to suspect people's motives. And I can't see anyone putting up an article on this company without good reason. (The magazine itself is not the subject of discussion, but I once nearly got a job writing this sort of thing.) It is a difficult name to research. Very common wording that makes separating the magazine in question not an easy task. (Potential advertisers might be impressed with the number of ghits, though.) The online version gets a few, but nothing worth noting (so far as I can see). Peridon (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds interesting, but notability is by no means established. — C M B J 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems totally un-notable. Turgan ^Talk 13:31, 24 August 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. Most people seem to believe the subject (if maybe barely) meets our notability standard. Sandstein 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Zain

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

this artist fails

WP:GNG Mo ainm~Talk 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he won "Best Religious Song for 2009 from Nujoom FM (Egypt’s biggest music radion station)" this might help with notability, but we'll need something other than a blog post for confirmation. The same could be said for a couple of other claims in the article too. Also, I suggest that the nominator add more detail to the nomination. See

WP:JNN. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep the two articles I provided in the last afd scrapes into
WP:GNG duffbeerforme (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This article fails
WP:MUSICBIO because 1 Maher hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician, 2 he hasn't had a single or album on any country's national music chart, 3 hasn't had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country, 4 hasn't received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, 5 hasn't released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, 6 isn't part of an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, 7 hasn't become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city, 8 Hasn't won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, 9 hasn't won or placed in a major music competition, 10 hasn't performed music for a work of media that is notable, 11 hasn't been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, 12 hasn't been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Now do you need me to list how he fails GNG also? Mo ainm~Talk 12:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that was the only one I said he passed. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gets trivial passing mention in sources listed in regard to his apperance at a free concert so fails criteria 1 in
wp:musicbio along with the other criteria listed above also per our general notabiliy guidelines. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"Fans throng to Maher Zain's Album debut concert at AUC", Daily News Egypt, 26 March 2010

This article is mainly about him and his concert and is 844 words long. The article says it was sold out, doesn't say it was free. It also includes the quote "Critics have described his debut album Thank You Allah as "an instant classic of great power and timeless, unassailably intense spirituality."" suggesting more coverage.

"An evening dedicated to peace and harmony...", Gulf Daily News, 3 August 2010

This article is about a separate (and free) concert has a 170 word section on Zain's life/career, more than a trivial passing mention, some would call significant coverage about him.

We have articles from Egypt and Bahrain covering a Swedish artist. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Duffbeer's explanation of sources. On the fence but it seems to barely pass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to (barely) pass
WP:N based on Duffbeer's sources. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - The two sources alone I don't think get it over
WP:BIO if they were all there is. But since one of the sources notes there are other sources (the quoted review), that fact to my mind barely crosses the threshold. I would suggest this is the very minimum to qualify; anything less, and I would !vote delete. I also note that the first discussion closed as no consensus just two days before this AfD was started. Normally more time should pass before an AfD is reconsidered. (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion (Renominations)) Novaseminary (talk) 04:52, 29 August 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. Tone 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn

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

Much of this article is duplicative with List of bus routes in Brooklyn, the route descriptions are very detailed, Wikipedia is not a timetable, just a reference encyclopedia, so not all the transfers need to be listed. As for histories, most of it is already in the main list, either as bulleted notes or as "hidden text" (comments) next to those notes.

Guyver8400 (talk · contribs) suggested deletion on the talk page in July 2007(!). —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fork of List of bus routes in Brooklyn. Any encyclopedic information that isn't already at the main list can be merged there, but I see no need to leave behind a redirect. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge if desired. This provides historic information that makes it more than a timetable. If merged, keep the redirect so anything not merged can be dug out in the future. --NE2 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, and merge with List of bus routes in Brooklyn. Nakon 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—unclear criteria for inclusion. What does "newly-formed" mean? This decade, this year, this month, this week? At least one of the bus routes mentioned in the article dates from the 1980s, which doesn't seem "newly-formed" to me. Perhaps an article such as List of bus routes in Brooklyn formed in the 2000s would be appropriate if it is really desirable to track bus routes by foundation date, but not this. –Grondemar 04:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe merge to
original research --> not worth keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, it's original research to decide whether or not a bus route is newly-formed. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to List of bus routes in Brooklyn. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing given to establish notability and
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 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. Tone 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Time Stories

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

Article does not meet the notability requirement for books. Article's creator removed Prod without asserting notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

^Talk 20:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomSadads (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability (books). Questionable notability, restricted to a local release area. Unknown author. Turgan ^Talk 13:42, 24 August 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. Tone 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Levy

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

Contested prod about an individual who lacks independent notability. Her primary source of notability is her

marriage to Geraldo Rivera. - Eureka Lott 19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Per
WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with a good reason why she should have her own article. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 23 August 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. Tone 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaded "b" word

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

Not a proper disambig, as none of the article titles contain the purportedly disambiguated phrase, or are even commonly known by that phrase; too indiscriminate to be an article topic.

T

19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be a collection of examples of lazy journalism. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not substantiated--Utinomen (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utinomen Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not within scope. — C M B J 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate and Keep Don't know if its new meme, cultural idiom or scrap but there seems to be 1000's of ghits with this phrase, and until we know what it is, it's worth allowing the author to expand the article and explain it. scope_creep (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but that holds true for any "dreaded [foo letter] word". I get several times as many google hits for "dreaded 'c' word" and "dreaded 'd' word", and nearly as many for "dreaded 'e' word". This is a linguistic function of assigning a quality of dread to an over-used word or a word representing a putatively unpleasant concept, and then identifying the word only by its first letter. There is nothing special about "b" words in the application of this practice, and if the meme belongs anywhere, it is in Wiktionary.
  T
  01:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Stuff and nonsense. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. scope_creep, until we know what it is, it's worth clearing out of the encyclopedia, per
WP:V. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Time for
WP:SNOW. --JaGa^talk 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Patent nonsense with no reliable sources to make any sense of it. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:50, 25 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Field

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

Notability claim mainly based on marriages to

talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as there is no indication of
notability. Being married to notable persons, does not makes she notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited Vartanza (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per
WP:A7. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:35, 28 August 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 ALL Consensus seems clear here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Airplay Chart

)

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

Non-notable chart, not approved by the IFPI. No hits on GNews in English or Russian. No information on Tophit.ru was found online either, regarding which stations are surveyed or how the airplay/spin/etc. data are tabulated. The chart name has a huge number of incoming links, but the mess can easily be cleaned up.

Also nominating related articles:

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My my what a disruptive nomination [2] clearly shows how the charts work, and that they are utilised by several hundred radio stations in Russia, Ukraine, CIS and Baltic states. That they don't belong to some IFPI, does not mean that they are any less worthy. Speedy keep and slap the nominator with a trout for the disruptive nom as a result of
I'm chanting as we speak 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

What the flying toasters? How is this disruptive? It's entirely in good faith. I strongly suggest you remove your false accusations. My concern here is that there's no notability — no secondary sources, nothing besides the chart's own website to verify even one iota of this information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SonyBMG Russia have a link to tophit.ru on their website [3]. They also partner with Universal Music Russia. Gala Records too [4] - who is EMI, Virgin, Capitol Records, Parlophone Records, etc in Russia. Some further information can be found on
I'm chanting as we speak 17:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- And then we also have Google News results[6], which not only have information from Russian news sources, but also from as far afield as the Dominican Republic. --
  I'm chanting as we speak 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Weird. Why did I get "your search turned up no results" when I typed tophit.ru into Google News? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't answer that question unfortunately :) Also, [7] is the link for Universal Music. Here's info from NewsMusic.ru. And of course Yandex.ru is probably a better avenue to search for Russian results. Also, I will somewhat retract my "disruptive" comments; time and time and time again I see nominations for Russian singers come up at AfD, and time and time and time again it is demonstrated that nominators have not searched in Russian; that's no biggy, but this is one of the main advantages of having WikiProjects, so that they can be approached if in doubt. Please consider using
      I'm chanting as we speak 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    - That's because different regional editions of GoogleNews return different results. Russavia's link was via GoogleNews Australia. There are also quite a few hits via GoogleNews Russia, but I only got one irrelevant result when I first tried to search the default US edition GoogleNews.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 18:20 (UTC)
Having looked at it, I think we could delete the Moscow Airplay Chart article and those lists, as they regional, and only from 25 radio stations. It's not that huge a chart, whereas the Russian chart is much larger (400+ radio stations). Sorry, didn't see those lists in there, and I too was going to AfD those a while back. But not the all-Union list. --
I'm chanting as we speak 18:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Needs references, but not disruption How is nominating an article for deletion disruptive? Basket of Puppies 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and well done lists, looks fine. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obscure, non-notable chart, virtually unknown here in Russia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the RS about this chart? note: don't TELL me they exist, add them to the article and then I'll reexamine the issue and reconsider my !vote--Cameron Scott (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Russian Airplay articles have been moved to Airplay Detection TopHit 100 titles, as this is the actual name of the chart. --
I'm chanting as we speak 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. We have to be wary of systematic bias, the airplay charts of Russia are as relevant as the airplay charts of the United States. Sources won't be widespread, as Eastern European music has limited resources out there (as I found a few years back when I couldn't garner enough sources to keep Featured Article status on my biggest article-space contribution). Esteffect (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limited suggests that some RS exists - so where are they? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I have clearly given some of those sources via links I have placed here, you could have taken it upon yourself to add information and some of those sources. But never fear, I am doing this myself and will be putting them into the article in due course. I actually have better things to do on WP, but this is one case of

I'm chanting as we speak 22:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually have better things to do on WP than sourcing articles? Well thank you great one for gracing us humble editors with your presence. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, I actually have better things to do then spend time on articles related to modern Russian music - because frankly, most of it is shite. But the

I'm chanting as we speak 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, no reliable sources, thus no notability. Also, having lived in Russia all my life, I have never heard of such a chart before reading the WP article, which is pretty strange, imho. Yes, I know that such arguments are hardly valid, but still... Qweedsa (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the only arguments provided by keepers are
WP:LOSE. Any promises of reliable sources are not backed up; what little sources Russavia found amount to nothing more than press releases announcing the nth anniversary of tophit.ru when run through Google Translate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom...and I also thought Airplay charts were a no-no? Like the
Hot 100 Airplay. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as trivia... and do NOT relist again.
NaSp Ve :| 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all no sources provided and proven, and no notability demonstrated for any of it. I'm aware of systematic bias arguments, but that isn't an argument that holds water for keeping things that aren't notable around. Courcelles 22:12, 28 August 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. 7.3 earthquakes are not inherently notable; the proposed earthquake notability guidelines have not gained widespread consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 Vanuatu earthquake

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

per

moral♪♫ 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a magnitude of 7.3 and has
WP:RS. If that had happened in a heavily populated place, the death toll would be massive. Compare the 7.0 in Haiti. Lugnuts (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable. It does not matter if the magnitude of the earthquake was strong, the damage is. This content is better suited for Wikinews, additionally. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the Rule of 7, which seems to be an informal rule of thumb that has more or less ended the Earthquake AfD wars... Simply put: over 7.0, it's in under inherent nobability; under 7.0, it's only in if it squishes lots of people or breaks lots of things. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Starzynka (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. scope_creep (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. No evidence of lasting impact, deaths. A magnitude of 7.3 don't change this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Keep per Carrite is not a particularly compelling reason when the above has explained how this arbitrary brightline makes no sense. It's a good guide, but trying to game a 7.1 into inherent notability is absurd. Try some
WP:RS, and that suggests to me this doesn't meet the threshold. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per Carrite. Also, "written in a news-like style" isn't a good argument.
Qwertyus 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Even if it was a magnitude 7 and the damage it could cause in a heavily populated area, it didn't so delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Derild 49 21 ☼ 21:19, 27 August 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. Tone 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany (christian teenage magazine)

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

Magazines are not candidates for speedy deletion, and the prod tag was removed by the author, so here we are for a discussion at Articles for Deletion of Epiphany, a teen-written magazine. The article itself is unsourced, and I was not able to find any

reliable independent sources discussing this publication with my own google news search. Can anyone else do any better than I did at sourcing and developing this article? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I can find no sources apart from their own website http://www.our-epiphany.org.uk/ clearly not notable as per
^Talk 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning, Sadads (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate saying 'per nom', but there's nothing more I can find to say. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I decline the SD and PROD'd the article instead. The only reference I can find to this magazine is on the organisation's own website - nothing at reliable independent sites. Unless some such references can be found, I see no evidence that this magazine is notable as Wikipedia defines it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see no evidence of notability, for example that the magazine has a wide circulation. As a quarterly founded last Christmas, it cannot have reached more than its third issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom & maybe now SNOW... Skier Dude (talk 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:04, 24 August 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. 7.3 earthquakes are not inherently notable; the proposed earthquake notability guidelines have not gained widespread consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ecuador earthquake

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

Non-notable earthquake. No casualties. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
moral♪♫ 16:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom JeremyMcClean (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a magnitude of 7.3 and has
WP:RS. If that had happened in a heavily populated place, the death toll would be massive. Compare the 7.0 in Haiti. Lugnuts (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
But it did not. The magnitude of the earthquake does not make it inherently notable, and no casualties occurred. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Its 7.3 magnitude alone does not make it notable in the absence of a significant impact, like casualties. --18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete If it could be shown that earthquakes of this magnitude are way out of the ordinary for Ecuador, possibly it could be notable. As it is, "2010 Ecuador earthquake" produces quite a few ghits - with varying dates so obviously not all the same one. This one also is given different strengths, 7.1 in the article, 7.3 above, and 6.9 by the BBC. I don't get the feeling that any particular quake merits the title of "2010 Ecuador earthquake" to the exclusion of all others. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7.3 is notable.Starzynka (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starzynka. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7.3 is notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the "Rule of 7"... Carrite (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with a bonus Comment - Earthquake documentationists, please make an effort at providing the world with more than one line and a map. Put some pride into your work! Carrite (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
Wikipedia isn't a place for news reports. No evidence of lasting impact. That it's magnitude was 7.3 doesn't change this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This earthquake does not meet the proposed guidelines for notability at WikiProject Earthquakes, note that deep or intermediate focus earthquakes (this one was >200 km) are normally excluded if they do no significant damage. I will add this to the List of earthquakes in Ecuador that I am currently constructing. Mikenorton (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that its entry in the list article has more information than this separate article - it is unneccessary. Mikenorton (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The USGS shakemap is green-blue - so this is notable as a magn. 3.0 quake. The depth is all that matters. Also, warn the creator he is making a mess with his creations see his talk page.--DAI (Δ) 12:37, 24 August 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. Closing as SNOW. Apparently the intention was a merge and AfD is not a place for those. Tone 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the apartheid analogy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination)
Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination)

)

I say that this article should be merged into a "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhere.

talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Since I've already spent a lot of time working on the article I don't think I can support a delete again. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be outraged if the article suddenly disappeared, but right now there is no chance in hell it will be removed after 6+ failed AFDs. There are simply too many editors that want the article and no reasonable argument can defeat so many users. I do believe much of the information should be removed entirely, especially the disturbing amount of attention given to non-notable opinion, as well as cutting out the blatant OR. In its current state the article doesn't pass basic standards aside from the introduction and a few body paragraphs. IMO "start-class" is way too generous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This isn't the place to bring a suggestion to merge articles. Start a discussion on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Malik and the 8! failed AfDs that came before. u n☯mi 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Israel has been charged with the crime of apartheid in international forums and courts, and in its own Supreme Court. The article is full of references to well-known public figures on both sides of the debate. It is obviously a notable topic. harlan (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per
WTF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Not an informed or really good-faith nomination. Article is well-sourced, subject matter is well-known and notable, and it is quite balanced overall despite the protests by partisans seeking to gut it from the inside out. Not that it matters much, but this AfD is a big mangled; no header, no links to past AfDs, etc... Tarc (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Balanced? Is that why the article has been stuck in start class for so long? Have you even read the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you harping on the "start" class quite a bit, but IMO that is a typical red herring kind of argument. I've honestly never really paid much attention to such things, but looking now at the "start" entry at
WP:ASSESS, which states "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources", that is not even remotely applicable to the current status of the article. When was the last time this article was assessed? Who decides such things? Tarc (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This article has been developing for ages and has gone through however many numbers of AFD. Virtually all of the article has been crafted and designed by specific editors - the style, the placement of sources, excessive reliance on non-notable material and basically copying and pasting entire pages from the favorite books of wikipedia editors. I literally had to remove 3 whole paragraphs of information that had absolutely nothing to do with apartheid or racism, or comparisons between israel and south africa. 3 paragraphs that sat in the article for more than a year. I find it hard to believe any member of Israel/Palestine project could honestly place the article above a start class. In any case, this should be closed because a delete simply won't happen. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for completely failing to address the question. I'll look elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? - I think Seb az86556 sums up the argument against this nomination nicely. keep in case it wasnt obvious; if in case you dont succeed, try try again is not a commendable course of action in AfDs. nableezy - 13:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep personaly I think this's a rather silly article but to the troll who nominated it: if you're nominating an article for it's 6th deletion attempt you probably need wonder whether you should be editing wikipedia. Misarxist (talk) 13:36, 21 August 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 I Killed the Prom Queen and Music for the Recently Deceased. The others can be renominated. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed the Prom Queen

AfDs for this article:

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

A search for published (books) that mention the group "I Killed the Prom Queen" is very short, most of the mentions in print are actually wikimirrors. This group was subject to an previous AFD in 2004

WP:V the article claims the band is now broken up, so any future increase in notability is unlikely. There are several albums by the group on Wikipedia (i.e. Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You) which could be included in this AFD but proding them after this debate closes seems simpler Jeepday (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as unsourced. There was a sourced version before, but the fans kept replacing it with an unsourced one. Even the sourced version didn't indicate enough encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-21t
13:50z
- The chart ref is a start, but not yet "
  significant coverage in reliable sources". A good start would've been a verifiable ARIA ref. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-22t
  21:27z
  - Keep I Killed the Prom Queen and Music for the Recently Deceased articles per Duffbeerforme's ARIA ref, but delete the other album articles especially the 2 completely unsourced ones. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-23t13:47z

Delete band and albums; no sources beyond Wiki mirrors and a terse Allmusic bio. Added the albums in case someone forgets to tag them for A9 after band's article is deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per duffbeer; not one but two charted albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Duffbeerforme. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally thinking of voting keep, due to them being associated with
Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.}
19:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~PS: Needless to say, all the album pages can also be deleted.~~
  ~~Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.} 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply
  ]
- Weak keep. I have changed my opinion on the article. Due to the recent development of finding out about their charting in Australia, that does prove some notability. Also, the band page now has two sources, which is nice. However, it still has referencing as a very prominent problem in this article, and has good potential to become better.
  Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.} 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Music for the Recently Deceased debuted at #27 on the ARIA albums chart (The ARIA Report, Issue 857. Week commencing 7th August 2006). Was in the top 100 for 4 weeks. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart ref is a start, but not yet "
  significant coverage in reliable sources". A good start would've been a verifiable ARIA ref. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-22t
  21:27z
  - The ARIA Report, Issue 857 is already verifiable, even without this link (if that doesn't work for you go here). Other issues of note, re-entry of album in issue 952, Sleepless Nights .. charting in issue 979.

Some Coverage: GET OUT with Alison Buckland, 21 May 2008, Central Coast Express

SINGER BUTCHER QUITS KILLED THE PROM QUEEN, 9 February 2007, World Entertainment News Network

Hot moves at Prom by Danielle O'Donohue, 18 January 2007, The Advertiser

PROM QUEEN MAKING WAVES by Jeff Crawford, 18 October 2006, Weekly Times Messenger

Prom night by KANE YOUNG, 12 October 2006, Hobart Mercury

Oasis Youth Centre has some world class acts booked to appear at all ages gigs over the coming weeks, with heavy metal band I Killed The Prom Queen leading the charge. JAMES TYDD finds out what it takes to sustain such a high-energy tour, 22 September 2006, Central Coast Express

That'll do for now. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 charted albums is enough to pass
wp:music. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Could possibly do with a bit more sourcing, but there's enough to pass muster. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article definatly needs some editing, and reliable references, the band itself is notable, with thier last album making it within the top 30 on the Australian ARIA charts. Also, the possibility exists of a reform.--Tristwin (talk) 14:06, 27 August 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 redirected as an alternate title. Article was redirected as an alternate title for exsiting bookarticle (

BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Simchung Jun

)

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

Contested prod about an historic Korean book. Unreferenced and no evidence of notability. I can't find anything on the web to even indicate that it exists (nothing in English, anyway). Fails

WP:RS andy (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a duplicate of Simcheongga. scope_creep (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't spotted that. I've now tagged it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just withdraw and redirect instead? — C M B J 09:54, 22 August 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. To answer the last question, a quarter of a million dollars isn't that much. But the facts presented by those arguing for deletion are stronger than the casual mentions advocated by the supports.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural Information Center

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

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Fails

WP:ORG. Cites are from the center, affiliated organizations or passing mentions in connection with other people or events. PROD removed by anon with of course no explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - "passing mentions", for one thing, are not evidence of lack of notability. In fact, the "passing mentions" use the MIC as the voice for multicultural/racial opinion at UT Austin (as it is the only one). It has a budget of a quarter of a million dollars (as noted) and actually, all four events that detail the complaints (such as Asian American racism at UT Austin, the Native American Costume complaint incident, the border patrol games, and the airline boarding complaint) are ALL articles dedicated from independent sources that speak about the MIC. That's 4, at least. 32.169.77.77 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 32.169.77.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Culver ran straight away to the Multicultural Information Center where she works in an effort to get the group to file a formal complaint about the offensive incident." does not constitute significant coverage of the center. "Mamta Motwani, Assistant Director at the Multicultural Information Center" does not by definition constitute significant coverage of the center per
WP:GNG, evidence of lack of notability. Please read the relevant policies and guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"Passing mentions" are explicitly named at
WP:ORG#Primary_criteria as one of many examples of trivial coverage that do not count towards notability. It's not good enough to get the org's name in the paper: you have to get the paper directly writing a story about the org. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to University of Texas at Austin. Not independently notable. Many references are provided, but most are self-referential or trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into University of Texas at Austin. Organization by itself lacks notability. --Crunch (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The organization is the racial/multicultural/social justice arm of the University of Texas at Austin. I count 5 sources, including Fox News, The Daily Texan, AsianWeek, the Burnt Orange Report, and The America's Intelligence Wire (encyclopedia of past articles), that independently cite and speak about the organization that are NOT affiliated with the MIC. Check the references. The article may be a little bloated, but definitely should exist in my opinion. The topic areas the MIC deals with, and the complaints/issues in the article itself, are very relevant for UT Austin to have information on. Merging with UT Austin doesn't make sense - the relevance of the MIC is in its topic area, and the UT Austin article doesn't necessarily deal with this area. 66.201.23.207 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.201.23.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Per the
notability guideline for organizations, sources that merely mention the organization or use its name to identify people who are quoted do not establish the notability of the organization. The cited sources are exactly these sorts of mentions, in fact some of them are quoted above. If this is of importance to UT Austin then start a UT Austin wiki and post it there. It doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- The following pages speak specifically and directly about either the MIC, organizations within the MIC that represent it, or students/advisors acting as representatives of the organization in an official capacity and representing the opinions of the MIC. They are cited within the MIC Wikipedia page already: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136443,00.html, http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/002419.html, http://www.utasiansonline.com/newlayout/spotlight/firingline.html, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-80405871.html, http://www.asianweek.com/beta/?p=1392. They are not passing mentions. ~~Do not delete~~. 66.201.23.213 (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News story mentions the MIC in one sentence in the context of mentioning someone who works at the center. Burnt Orange appears to be a blog with unknown editorial standards, thus not a reliable source. UTAsian appears to be affiliated with MIC and thus not independent. Asian Week is coming back to my system as an attack page so I can't check it. These passing mentions and non-independent sources do not establish notability. Please read the relevant guidelines. Also, you only get to !vote once. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Do Not Delete~~ (for emphasis) These articles are cited for all the protests/complaints of the MIC at the bottom of the page. The Fox News story does not mention the MIC in one sentence - it mentions it as the entity that reported the racist event, basically the one that took action against the event entirely. Burnt Orange Report is a blog, yes, but also provides facts to which I report, and is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (though up for deletion, it seems to have been voted as having some importance - such as being accredited by the Democratic Party). UTAsian is affiliated with the MIC but kept records of The Daily Texan articles, of which I cite. Certainly that is allowed. Asian Week is not an attack site - ignore the warning and push through, it's a browser error. Again, if you can't find them, check the 5 paragraphs at the bottom of the page, after the organization's informational material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.23.219 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News story, which is about a Halloween party, does indeed mention the MIC in a single sentence, as the place where the person who complained was employed. It mentions Ms. Culver as the "entity" who reported the event. It does not report on any action that the MIC took in response, nor indeed does it report that MIC took any action whatsoever. The other sources are similar and, as you note, are affiliated with MIC in some instances. These are not independent reliable sources including significant coverage of the MIC. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News story AND the Burnt Orange Report talk about the same incident, and is cited as such in the Wikipedia article. The MIC filed a formal complaint against the organization, according to the Burnt Orange Report, a blog accredited by the Democratic Party and therefore of notable standards. The Daily Texan articles and quotes cited by UTAsian is also of notable standards. AsianWeek's article, which I have found another src to on AsianWeek's website, is here: http://www.asianweek.com/2005/03/25/protesters-halt-%E2%80%98immigrant-hunt%E2%80%99-in-austin-texas/. It speaks about the Latino Leadership Council, an agency of the MIC. And, the airline incident is also of notable standards, as the "victim" was the director of the MIC at the time and her actions speak for the MIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.81.141 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to start signing your comments by typing four tildes after them ~~~~. Second, you need to read
WP:RS. The airline incident does not establish the notability of the organization simply because the leader was the person involved, nor does her involvement mean that she was speaking or acting on behalf of the group. The various immigrant hunt stories again simply for the most part mention the organization in relation to identifying a person associated with it. Still no significant coverage in reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry about the tildes, I kept forgetting. There are only 12 employees. When an organization's opinions and action consist of the opinions and actions of the organization's employees, the organization IS the employees, and their actions in an official capacity ARE the organization. I read what you linked to - it is incomplete in terms of converage. The MIC's opinions and actions are determined by the spokespersons of that organization, and when the organization exists purely to put out opinions and accomplish activities, only employees would/could speak for it. There is no other way for the MIC to even achieve notability except via the opinions of its employees. That's like saying Martin Luther King's involvement in the Civil Rights Movement doesn't create notability for the Civil Rights Movement. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way an organization attains notability for WP purposes is to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the people who work at the MIC have attained such notability for the organization. The name "Multicultural Information Center" seems not to have been mentioned enough in each article to satisfy you, but it would not make sense for it to be. The employees make up the organization, speak for it, and define it. Again, you only argue that the articles I cited do not speak about the MIC, not that the articles do not speak directly about the employees that define it. In fact, the articles would not have been written AT ALL if the people who were written about were not employees of the MIC, because their opinions would not hold notable weight. It is only because the people in the articles were affiliated with the MIC were the articles even written. And frankly, no, the articles are even enough to speak about the notability of the MIC. Anyone reading this, please check the following articles to make sure either the employees of the MIC (who are only notable because they work for the MIC that year) or the MIC itself are covered in these articles: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136443,00.html, http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/002419.html (notability seemingly established here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burnt_Orange_Report), http://www.utasiansonline.com/newlayout/spotlight/firingline.html, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-80405871.html, http://www.asianweek.com/2005/03/25/protesters-halt-%E2%80%98immigrant-hunt%E2%80%99-in-austin-texas/ In fact, I have taken the liberty of extracting the relevant information from the articles already in the Wikipedia article. Go here if you wish to see what came directly from these sources about the MIC or it's employees (which are only notable, again, because they work for the MIC that year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural_Information_Center#Complaints_and_Protests 67.78.81.141 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so even if independent reliable sources established that everyone who works for MIC is notable, that does not establish the notability of the Center. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

You are purposely ignoring the fact that the people's notability are only even considered to have important opinions BECAUSE of their affiliation to the MIC. They are only considered important because of their position in the MIC. That link reads "...parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." It only speaks of situations where a product/person can exist on its own without the parent. If the subordinate is defined by its relationship with the parent, and has no other affiliations, the parent should become notable. This is touched on in the relationship defining a position section at the bottom. "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." The fact of having a relationship to the MIC inherently defines a position of notability (if publicized, as I have proven) that these sources have capitalized on to show the opinions of the MIC. These people are NOTHING without the MIC, and are not even notable in their own right - they are only notable because of that affiliation. If Wikipedia has not explored this concept, I don't think the article should be penalized. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is not notable because of its members, the members are not notable because of the organization, and none of them are notable based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. The organization and its actions have received some coverage in independent reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see any of this coverage cited in the article. --Crunch (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. They're at the bottom. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Merge whatever is left, if anything, after culling out all the non-RS supported material (which is nearly everything). Lacks sufficient coverage in RS supported articles to be a standalone article. Note: the two "do not delete" !votes are from SPAs.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given examples of 5 sources, independently generated, that talk about the MIC and it's actions. I contend that they are NOT passing mentions and warrant enough merit for the article to exist. Please go back over the articles yourself if you wish to vote to delete the MIC page. I do not agree with Cow of Pain's assessment. 66.201.23.219 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the reference bombing in the article, there is no significant coverage that establishes ntoability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, read the article. I just trimmed it to get rid of possible reference bombing when it was created, but the bottom information on complaints, etc. sincerely are relevant to the MIC's notability. The people involved in it are NOT notable if they are not affiliated with the MIC, and the report was only even made BECAUSE of the MIC's involvement. Seriously, all read the article. Especially the bottom. Again, Martin Luther King was only relevant because he was involved in the Civil Rights Movements and what he did for it, but it garnered notability for the movement anyway. This is the same concept - it is not simply about an employee of the MIC going bowling, it's about an employee of the MIC DOING OFFICIAL BUSINESS for the MIC!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136443,00.html, http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/002419.html, http://www.utasiansonline.com/newlayout/spotlight/firingline.html, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-80405871.html, http://www.asianweek.com/2005/03/25/protesters-halt-%E2%80%98immigrant-hunt%E2%80%99-in-austin-texas/ 67.78.81.141 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I reviewed the references before coming to my conclusion. But I will explain further. Blogs, and campus newspapers are not useful for establishing notability. The campus papers may at best make a case for merging to the university's article. As for those sources that would be considered useful for notability, none of them are writing about the organisation as the main subject. So taking all of the referencing as a whole, it still lacks significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an organization that deals with racial topics, the events ARE their main coverage (and how they respond). An article about the CIA overturning some crazy African government is about the overthrow, NOT about the CIA, but still brings notability to the CIA. Campus newspapers are not automatically cases for non-notability, it simply makes a case for localized notability, which is NOT cause for deletion, right? Or shall we delete all the towns in the US on Wikipedia that are not important to the rest of the country? 67.78.81.141 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the coverage is about the organisation or its involvement with the incident to any significant degree. As I said earlier, a campus newspaper may justify a merge to a university's article. However, in this instance, I just don't seet eh coverage that would even support that. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only response to the incident is from the MIC, or an employee which acts as a representative of its view, that is significant. Does Wikipedia had standards that talk about what this "significant degree" concept is? Seems pretty subjective. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - These are passing mentions. This has already been discussed heavily above in in tis discussion. Rehashing it here will not change that. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does have a standard as to what constitutes significant coverage. It is written out at
WP:GNG, to which you have been referred several times. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (check), so no original research is needed to extract the content (check). Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material (WHAT ALL OF YOU ARE SAYING IS NEEDED). 67.78.81.141 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources here do not address the subject directly and in detail and they are trivial mentions, so not at all what we're saying is needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish. I give up. I don't know what type of coverage you are looking for, but for the multicultural arm of the University of Texas, this literally is the best it could ever do. I can't even think of an article that would describe the center itself- it'd be pointless. Only the events it deals with are/will ever be covered. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.81.141 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no evidence of notability. Thparkth (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me to ask - if it is an organization granted a quarter of a million dollars by UT Austin each year, does that make it notable enough? 67.78.81.141 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 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 via A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Willhouse

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

I will quote the original

PROD

nomination before backing my reasoning why this article should be deleted...

All
deleted
. If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see
Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk
. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. Please do not remove this tag unless the article has at least one such source

this PROD proposal have been contested numerous times by the

reliable third party source

for his BLP or have at all made an effort to do so. His only effort to do so have been the subject's own website, which does not qualify.

I have looked up for sources and can find none, except this Wikipedia article. I can conclude that this BLP is about this SPA user, therefore making him a

COI case. Therefore this is my decision to nominate and agree on a delete vote for this BLP. Donnie Park (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Checking the sources for this article, I find the sources and credits listed to be somewhat doubtful:
I find only one book named Fidel Castro's Cuba: a 2007 title (not 2004 as listed) by one Rita Markel. Any photographic credits Willhouse received for this book would have been incidental at best.

Google Books finds no book named Terminal Z published any time between 2004 and 2007.

Google Books finds no book named Reinventing Reality published any time after 2005.

Google finds no information on any entity named Das neue Fotolexicon"

My only conclusion from this is that the references are entirely not notable, or they are entirely fabricated. In either case, the article is in no way

verifiable and should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, hoax. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) G3 I call shenanigans. No Google hits outside the external link already present; sources are obviously fabricated. Even my mom's name gets more Ghits than this guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:42, 21 August 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. Tone 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna as gay icon

AfDs for this article:

)

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

Original research. This is honestly one of the worst offenders of the original research rule I've seen in a long time, a perfect example of the kind of "synthesis" we forbid on Wikipedia. It's a long, long string of facts and observations strung together to advance a position. — TheBilly^(Talk) 10:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position of her being a gay icon is well-known and notable. Of the many sources and lists of her as a top gay icon, it was even in a book. She is open about it as well. The article has a lot of referencing issues but it shouldn't be deleted. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly, from the sources cited in the article, her relationship with the gay community is notable. I think a better title would be "Madonna and the gay community" or "Madonna and homosexuality." No need for WP to say that she is an "icon," whatever that means. I am sure that not every gay person is a fan. (And did anyone notice that madonna -- Madonna (art) that is -- and icon are very related in meaning, not that that's a reason to keep or delete this article.) Borock (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entirely reasonable spinout article from
Janet Jackson as gay icon shows that articles under this naming convention are sustainable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per discussion above, especially by Cow of Pain and Norty Nort; and as I shall note. The main article is far too long, and this article merely needs cleanup and other issues fixed.

WP:AfD is not for fixing an article that can be fixed through the ordinary editing process

. Bearian'sBooties 01:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep similar articles like this one, such as Judy Garland; referenced. This is also well known and notable. Tommy! [message] 01:41, 22 August 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. Tone 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Hell Retreats

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

Limited notability might not make it past

WP:BAND Eeekster (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as article fails
notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete touring with another act doesn't make you inherently notable if you otherwise fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a quick google search doesnt throw up anything of worth on this band also no coverage on allmusic.com. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note that I can see. Peridon (talk) 11:23, 23 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Phillip

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

Fails

WP:Academic; only published two papers (one as NH Phillip). Autobiographical too! Chris (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own Google scholar searches match the nominator's statement about the paucity of his publications. He does not pass
WP:PROF#C1 nor, it seems, does he pass any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per David Eppstein. Also, as the nominator notes, the article was created by
WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 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 Kept. After reviewing her article and the associated refs, I think she clearly deserves an article. Her modelling career may not be much yet, but the furvor over her winning the title in 2007 is significant. Looks as if her winning the gold coast event sparked a movement which resulted in a change in the laws in Australia. This is significant and her role in that change was more than marginal.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maddison Gabriel

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

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

Suspect notability. Article has the refs, but as it's been noted in two PRODs, the refs only point to the subject being

known for a single news item three years ago. A quick check of her Fashion Model Directory profile shows she has done literally nothing since then. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Delete Completly fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Has signed with Elite, one of the World's biggest modeling agencies, has been the subject of articles from all around the world (see references) and even caused the Australian prime minister to comment on the situation. She is NOT known for a single news item. She is known for being the face of Gold Coast Fashion week at 12 years old, but also for signing for Elite Models. 24.122.11.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep She also made the news again after being "stalked" by an American convict who requested pictures of her by writing to a newspaper. And by the way, this model was the subject of comments by the prime minister of Australia AND the leader of the opposition. She made the news numerous times and is one of modeling's rising star. So this deletionist nonsense must stop NOW Terveetkadet (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a young article and should probably be
userfied rather than deleted entirely.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete Absolutely zero
BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Was the subject of articles all around the world for the Gold Coast Week, for signing with Elite after being courted by all the big modeling agencies and her mother also commented heavily in the media because of the stalker thing. Like
Monika Jagaciak, she is a very important person, especialy in the context of a better understanding of the issues related to age and modeling since many fashion festivals now forbid models below 16 on runways but still, agencies still hire 12, 13 and 14 years old models. 207.134.167.39 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

And she may not be THAT well-known in the U.S. yet but she sure is in Australia and New Zealand, where she is regularly featured in magazines and newspaper articles. 207.134.167.39 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more info AND references have been added showing that she has been active in modeling AND acting since 2007. She has been featured in many Australian magazines and other magazines in Europe too and is in a Bryan Ferry video. This article has been enhanced and can be enhanced again in the future Terveetkadet (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has international recognition, and multiple independent sources. Turgan ^Talk 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep is used in Australian schools as a source of reference for English Essays on self esteeme and has even had reference made to her in Journalistic studies at Griffith University on the Gold Coast. Has had "facebook" pages made from young fans in the USA. Young girls around the world actually still try to contact her and are interested in her continued growth. User:Michelle Gabriel 12.00pm 23rd August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that signing someone else's name is a no-no. These
BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sockpuppet of who??? That seems crazy but User:Michelle Gabriel's IP is actually from Australia, on the Gold Coast. I'm a bit sceptic because of the writing errors, especialy in the name Tugun (which was incorrectly written Tugan) but that actually might be her mother or someone close to her because on the info she gave, including the school that she attends now, which seems to be exact with the checks I made today Terveetkadet (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am her mother. I suffer from dyslexia and sometimes spell things wrong, Just looked up her passport - you are right it is spelt Tugun! I've always spelts it Tugan. Sorry for my mistake. You also Spelt "Sidney" wrong which I corrected which is Sydney. What else do you want for me to prove I am her mother? My full name is Michelle Carolynne Gabriel, my maiden name is Kortum. I come from Melbourne originally and moved to the Gold Coast over 20 years ago. I don't know how to use this very well but thought it was wroth showing you my IP address so you could see I am from Gold Coast Australia - to try to prove who I am. You can also check me out on Facebook, where I have Maddi as one of my friends and also a hoax Maddi that I am trying to talk into deleting (she is a 13yo from USA, who is also now a friend also) Sorry I can't spell:-) I am trying to help make sure this is all correct information. User:Michelle Gabriel - Maddi's Mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, Mrs Gabriel, I truly appreciate your contributions, as it helps make the page more complete and you have info that most of us don't have access to. I am not the person who became angry at your comments Terveetkadet (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terveeetkadet, I finally found out what sockpuppet meant! And thank you for your words. I really was only trying to help and make things correct as I am sure it is helpful if Wikipedia has correct information as so many kids use it for references for their school work these days. If there are other questions you have (just as long as they are not to personal) we are willing to answer them. Also if you want more up to date photo's too, we can supply (if someone explains how!) Sorry that the other person doesn't think I am a real person. I am, I can assure you! I also do not like people pretending to be others! Anyway hopefully the information I have supplied helps and sorry I don't edit well and correct my spelling and bad typing as well as I should (you should see my texting capabilities!) User:Michelle Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT. Only notable for being in the news and nothing else. (Possibly two events, including the later stalking incident but still not news.) Modeling career not notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(changed to comment) Her career is not noteable yet, due to the fact that Australia changed the age to 16 for models because of her starting to model at 13. Other models have lied about their age to be able to model before 16 but as she was known she couldn't and wouldn't lie about her age. For a 15 yo she has travelled and worked on three continents, has been asked to also model in China, Malayasia and Japan but hasn't due to finishing school. This is the start of a career that will continue and in the next few years potentially blossom. Both Fashion in Italy and Storm in London wanted her to give up school to model full time as they can see her potential, however she has decided to continue school for the next year. After than she will then model full time and from what all the agents say has a potential of a very long career ahead of her. This information now is pertanant to many who are still following her career. Many teenage girls look up to her and see her as a potential and role model for them.
Michelle Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: as this is a second "keep" !vote by the same IP (I'm sure it's by accident
BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I think the Gold Coast Fashion Week thing, the other contest she won, the fact she signed for Elite, the fact she models on many continents, the fact that she has worked for many agencies and posed in many magazines, the fact that she appears in a Bryan Ferry video, the fact that she has been the subject of articles from independent sources all around the world makes her notable not only in Australia but internationnaly. Meets the criteria for notability more than what's asked for... 207.134.167.39 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If her career, per your admission, is not notable yet (not to mention she's more concerned with being a student), she shouldn't have an article; notability is not based on what might happen in the future. Also, if a debate is relisted, you don't need to vote again. To 207.134.167.39: the significant coverage is all related to the news items. Her career is sourced entirely to a talent directory and a page created by an agency, and all they verify is a trio of editorials—which is entirely unremarkable. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Jagaciak are important for the understanding of that issue. Many teenage models or athletes are doing it part time too cause school is important to them. Should they be declared «not notable» because school is important to them? I don't think so. Maddison has been featured in many publications in Australia and all around the world and is in a Bryan Ferry video, she has also been signed by Elite models, those items have nothing to do with the news item you keep coming back with. There are people who are known only for being in an Internet meme and who have their Wikipedia pages. I respectfully think that Maddison Gabriel is not less notable than the Numa Numa Guy 207.134.167.39 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh please don't slip into the
BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

(
BWilkins ←track)I think I explained my point of view in a respectful manner and I never qualified any article of being «crap» so I don't understand why you use those words and that tone 207.134.167.39 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you even read the linked essay, or just fail to

BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 27 August 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) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Peterson

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

No notability. Ran for office once, and all sources are from then. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable.
Stuartyeates (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- insufficient notability demonstrated in a
reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- A PolitiFact fact-check and TIME Newsfeed both called one of his ads the "best campaign ad ever." In a Google search for best campaign ad ever, his ad is the first video result, and the subject of 3 of the first 4 web results.Wharrel (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Ran for a single low-level state-wide election and lost in the primary. Fails
WP:Politician. Having a mention in the TIME Newsfeed isn't sufficient to remedy that. --Crunch (talk) 18:49, 21 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Resume Parser

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

Deprodding. Even though this particular piece of software might not be notable, I think there should be an article about this general type of software; if such an article exists, then I recommend merging instead. In either case, I seek consensus before deletion. Bwrs (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few sources that I have found seem to focus more on the company that makes and distributes the software and less on the software itself. And none of those sources seem to provide much in the way of notability --Dlrohrer 2003 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 14 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. I can't find much but advertisements. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a type of software product thats not generally known to even the computing fraternity, of which i'm one. Its a highly specialized software type that's as far as your run of the mill database or word processor as is a Tiger is to a Canary. As such I think that establishes notability, and the article should be kept and expanded. scope_creep (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being obscure does not make a subject notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 August 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 Primeval. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval (Series Four)

)

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

Sourced only to wikia, crystal ball rumors. I removed a gigantic plot summary that seems absurd for a series which hasn't even started filming yet. The editor who created this article has a history of reporting rumors as fact, and is repeatedly reverted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. None of the first three series already broadcast have separate articles, all are included in Primeval or List of Primeval episodes. In any case, there is no information about Series 4 beyond a commitment to make it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primeval. Icalanise (talk) 22:33, 26 August 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 (Nomination withdrawn). utcursch | talk 04:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaba Gandhi No Delo

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

Article is about, I think, a museum for where Gandhi stayed for a small part of his life. Per

WP:N. Note that article creator is making a series of articles about this town, others of which have also been flagged for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Notable enough to be one of the main attractions in Rajkot. [8][9][10] Like Beethoven House, a place can become notable if related to an iconic figure. And at least one reliable source calls it Ghandi's "ancestral home", not just a place "where Gandhi stayed for a small part of his life." [11] What the article creator has been doing with other articles has nothing to do with the notability of this one. (I see that the article was created by an anon in 2005 who only had three edits total, so I'm not sure what the nom is talking about here anyway.) --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With at least 50 mentions in books and magazines, this seems to be a notable museum. utcursch | talk 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Personally, I don't think guide books are reliable sources, but I've seen them used in other articles. As such, I withdraw the AfD, and this can be closed. It would be great if someone actually added these references to the article (I won't be doing so myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 22 August 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. Tone 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan_Candiotti

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Susan Candiotti

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

Subject is not notable. No biographical sources. Cookiehead (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is poorly written and lacks sources. This does not mean the subject is not notable. Candiotti is a national correspondent for CNN and has a long history with the network. The fact that she "has received nine regional Emmy awards and an Associated Press award for investigative reporting" should more than meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Crunch (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National correspondents for news networks are always notable. chatter) 05:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Added above ref to satisfy BLP criteria for inclusion. Subject clearly notable. Cindamuse (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national news correspondent, google books shows many many mentions, as well as many on google news. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 22 August 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 by nominator (non-admin closure). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

The Acacia Strain

The Acacia Strain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article has no sources (and if none exists, does not meet
WP:MUSIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, this nomination is illegitimate. If the previous people who worked on the article failed to add sources, that is a reason for others to expand and improve the article, and NOT a reason for deletion. The nominator also said "if none exists" (key word is IF) meaning that he/she didn't do good-faith research before nominating. These are all obvious violations of #1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of
WP:BEFORE, making this whole AfD useless except for the fact that now the rest of us know the article needs improvement. As for this band, they have an acceptable level of coverage at AllMusic, where the Charts & Awards tab notes their several placements on the charts, a fact that is easily verifiable at Billboard. I also found a few other sources and added them to the article, plus a few edit and cleanup tags, which didn't take much more time than writing this vote. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per some of what Doomsdayer520 says above has coverage on allmusic.com and have released on a significant record label. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree that the nomination was illegitimate. The article has existed for over 10 months. In all that time, no legitimate source has been added. Articles may not stand around unsourced on Wikipedia forever. Adding tags is helpful when new information is added that can likely be sourced, but this information was not new. The only legitimate part of
WP:BLP
policies. That means, in my opinion, that nominating for AfD was the correct approach. As such I now...

Withdraw the nomination: With the addition of new sources, the band now appears to meet
WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 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 Tone 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REWIND (film

REWIND (film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

PROD contested by author. A film that has not even been officially announced yet. No indication of who is making it or who is in it. Speculative, unreferenced and unverifiable. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to qualify as a speedy. In all likelihood, it's the author's personal project or a hoax.
talk) 02:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as waaaaaaaay
WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - What can I really say, it has no sources, it's 2 years too early, it's not even stub class. For all intents and purposes it's an article about a subject that does not exist. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of above. --Stickee (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete film that has yet to be released or verified. The name doesn't help in searching.
csdnew 10:30, 21 August 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 Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gell

Alan Gell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Essentially BLP1E. Only known for a single event and has not been known for anything since then not related to that single event. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A freed death row inmate is highly notable, especially when the article has plenty of reliable sources. This article (that I have never edited) should be a part of this encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tostada. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alan Gell was a
BLP1E upon his conviction and subsequent capitol sentence. Being exonerated while on death row definitely qualifies as a second event.My76 Strat 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - BLP1E is inappropriate: I agree with My76Strat that the conviction was (arguably) just one event, but the legal and constitutional ramifications of his exoneration are far greater than that. "One event" does not adequately describe its attributable significance. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SteveStrummer Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 August 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. Tone 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Lopresti

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Lopresti

Rodrigo Lopresti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This subject does not meet notability standards. Being mentioned in your local newspaper and having an IMDB profile does not make you notable. Hundreds of filmmakers win awards every year - most of which do not have Wikipedia pages - that's what IMDB is for. Not Wikipedia. Slyforeman (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Slyforeman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am always concerned when a nomination begins with a
Brooklyn, New York.... so it seems a few "facts" in this nomination are being just a teeny bit skewed. Does the article need cleanup? Yes. Does it need more sourcing? Yes. But if such prove to be surmountable issues, they are not cause for deletion. I am also always concerned when the very first edits ever by a brand new editor are to begin a deletion nomination.[12] Nice that this newcomer is jumping right in... and AGF is AGF, yes... but please forgive me, as this one strains just a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 15 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The subject is an actor, producer, writer, director, and composer. He has created and established a body of work, which includes involvement in over 17 films or television programs. He has also written, directed, and produced a feature-length film. As such, he meets the criteria of
WP:CREATIVE Cindamuse (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Sufficient body of work to merit inclusion. I echo the misgivings of Michael Schmidt expressed above over the fact that this AfD challenge is the very first action of a new WP account. The vendetta duck is quacking. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's had an IMDB profile for almost a decade, so an established actor, clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 02:33, 22 August 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. Tone 16:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Belgium-related articles

Index of Belgium-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a massive list of articles "related to Belgium." Isn't this what we have categories for? No one will randomly type in the article title, so the categorization method should suffice for easy of navigation Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angola-related topics. This article is very usefull to the Belgium-interested editors and cannot be replaced by the Belgium Category. 07:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.69.237 (talk)

Keep Lists and categories work hand-in-hand, per
WP:CLN. This is an obvious aid to navigation and is part of the larger scheme Category:Indexes of articles by country Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Looking at WhatLinksHere suggests to me that although the nom is correct that probably nobody would type this article's title in, it is being put to good use in links. I believe Lugnuts is correct that this has a place in ease of navigation of an obviously expansive group of topics. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The precedent for this article was established with the resolution of a mass deletion request associated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angola-related topics. While that decision may be reasonably be revisited with another mass deletion request and debate, it seems like this is now a settled matter and there is no rationale for singling out this particular country-specific navigation tool. My own view is that it is of limited worth, outside of helping to prevent automatic orphan tags. But the ruling standing on such articles is "KEEP ALL" and we should respect that here. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:OUTCOMES
and Carrite. We must respect settled precedent, or ~~courts~~ WP:AfD will get overwhelmed time and time again. Bearian'sBooties 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McWilliams

Tom McWilliams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics
)

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

I can't find enough coverage on this songwriter and producer. Claims of awards but these claims aren't verified, and the only sources I can find name him as a co-winner (way down a list). Notability is not inherited from the people he has worked with, and this article remains an unsourced BLP. I may be missing something, and am more than willing to withdraw the nom if sources can be provided to prove his notability, but at the moment recommending deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 19:35, 18 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:MUSICBIO and nomination Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loan modification in the United States

Loan modification in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Reads more like an essay, sources are primary. Seems redundant to existing articles. If this is indeed a notable topic, it'd be better to start from scratch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Useful information? Yes. But content-wise and style-wise it's more like a government pamphlet than an encyclopedia article, especially given it's probably short-term relevance. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor quality is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Absolutely an inclusion-worthy topic. Article is flagged for lack of a lead and somebody needs to write one immediately. Certainly an article which can and should be improved, but that's not reason to haul this here for deletion. Not an unwikified and unsourced original essay, which is what we should be on guard for. Needs work but a reasonably good early effort at writing economic history with contemporary importance. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs work. Tangurena (talk) 21:18, 26 August 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) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tru: A XXX Parody

Tru: A XXX Parody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM; article has no substantive content. Parody does not inherit the notability of its target.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know there's been comment about the parody, mostly as it seems that Anna Paquin got a laugh out of it. See here and here. Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is mentioned here as well... and since the growing genre of XXX Parody seems to receive coverage, why not include them all as a notable genre article, instead of seperate articles? Tru: A XXX Parody, 30 Rock: A XXX Parody, Friends A XXX Parody, Sex and the City: A XXX Parody, The Big Lebowski: A XXX Parody, and The Office: A XXX Parody, Octopussy 3D: A XXX Parody, Cheers A XXX Parody, The Golden Girls A XXX Parody, Seinfeld A XXX Parody, etc.[13] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 19 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - While an article entitled something like Parody in American pornography might be doable, so to speak, this lame ad for an obscure film is not. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 21 August 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) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National School Meals Week

National School Meals Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems to be written as an advert, nothing to establish notability - google search gives a few rehashed press releases. Random Time 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising copy lightly rewritten to wikipedia guidelines but still non-notable.
Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 16 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Written like an advertisement Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Miles Blues. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:38, 21 August 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. There is a cover article on the topic, no need for all the redlinks. Tone 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones

List of Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a very long list of mostly red-linked clones. It's unreferenced (likely ripped from a website), far too many red links, and contains too many mistakes. Action Gamemaster was never released, Entertainment Computer System is an Intellivision add-on, Nintoaster is a case mod, and "Super Joy Fun Stick Player Mech Game Player Game" is Benjamin Heckendorn's nickname for the Power Player Super Joy III. In short, a complete mess of an "article".

keep, but limit to bluelinked (and correctly bluelinked) entires only. Agree in current form it is a mess, but messes should be cleaned up, not deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of whether it can be cleaned up or not. The NOAC is a very very commonly available chip, and there's just way to many devices and systems out there using it to justify listing anything but the most notable, which even then the handful of which can simply be mentioned in prose in the Nintendo Entertainment System article. As such, I don't see enough notability to carry it's own article here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rational by Marty Golberg. Additionally this article has no sources (let alone, reliable significant ones) to cover it. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in a cut-down form, but not restricted to blue linked articles (Category:Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones serves that purpose) - NES clones are an important part of many countries' gaming history outside of Japan, North America and Western Europe, but many of them aren't individually notable or unique enough to warrant their own article (there are only so many different ways you can say "it plays Famicom games but it's shaped more like console X, oh and it has turbo buttons"). It shouldn't attempt to list every clone ever produced - there are thousands of them - but at least those that enjoyed some degree of popularity somewhere in the world. Sengokucannon (talk) 18:01, 20 August 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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Amusingly I was going to suggest this be a category rather than an article. Turns out it's already a category. There's also a full length article on NES clones. If a clone doesn't deserve it's own article or even mention within the clones article, why does it need a whole other article to catalogue it? Not to mention this list isn't sourced and contains some...questionable entries. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments from OldManNeptune, MartyGoldberg and Teancum Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:48, 21 August 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_August_21&oldid=1142642493"