Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 18

< 17 July	19 July >

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 keep. JForget 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Jefferson ( Le Sueur County )

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

This is about a lake whose claim to notability is that it is the biggest one in the whole county. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function, referenced lakes are usually considered notable, and this lake now has been verified. (Note: I moved the article to Lake Jefferson (Minnesota), which is the proper disambiguation as there is only one Lake Jefferson in Minnesota.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedias have always had article about geographical features. Why shouldn't Wikipedia do the same? If you want more sources in the article then take your pick from these.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep referenced place. Usually, articles about geographical features are kept unless provably non-existent.
Maashatra11 (talk) 07:36, 23 July 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 deleted (

CSD A7) by NawlinWiki. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Alston capital management llc

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

Company article created with no assertion of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:09, 18 July 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 (

Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Allie varley

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

I suspect this may not meet the notability for sportspeople, having played only one year for Syracuse University before an unfortunate accident. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, and tagged as such. No importance is asserted, no significance found. — Timneu22 · talk 21:39, 18 July 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. Fails

WP:CORP. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Bodhtree Consulting Ltd

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

I am concerned that this may not meet the notability criteria and wish to find consensus. Though it may serve agencies in the UK, USA and Asia this is probably not very uncommon, only has 300 employees also. Does not appear to assert any notability in terms of statistics, awards, firsts or achievements. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are evidently a handful of articles in business news about them, they seem extremely minor. I don't think it meets
WP:CORP. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An entirely
long term historical notability. Blatant spam couched in empty jargon: ....known for its product MIDAS (Multi Industry Data Anomaly Solution) and it's CoE (Center of Excellence) for SaaS & Cloud computing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GNG. It is listed in Bombay Stock Exchange and as a result has had fair amount of coverage in Indian financial media (newspapers, agencies and TV) Business Standard, India infoline, Livemint, CNBC, The Hindu, Businessline etc. (some of this coverage is at least partially sourced from press releases, but there is enough sufficient independent coverage)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep )-- per Sodabottle. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:CORP Racepacket (talk) 20:29, 24 July 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 Warriors (novel series)#Warriors: Omen of the Stars. JForget 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign of the Moon

)

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

Unreferenced speculation about a future book release. Fails

WP:N. PROD/PROD2 removed without explanation. I42 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as book whose release date is too far in the future for any reliable sources to exist. Also, possibly create lock/salt Redirect to Warriors (novel series)#Warriors: Omen of the Stars, then possibly semi-protect the article until November, 3 months before release date. Bramble claw x 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Ahh I did not see this but yes, I agree with Brambleclawx on this. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with others Redirect to the article instead of delete. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is not enough information, and the book is not yet even close to being released. ••Pep per•• 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Oceansummer87 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent series until/unless there's some actual coverage. No reason this can't be a redirect, but I don't see any reason for it to be more than that at this point. Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the release date is too far away to eaven decide if the tribe of rushing water is in the book.Sorry.--GIRbookworm (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, just so people looking for the book will at least get to a coherent page that isn't "create this article". so nia^♫♪ 14:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Racepacket (talk) 20:31, 24 July 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. JForget 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Enterprise Java Pattern

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or collection of FAQ's, which is what this article seems to be Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, whatsoever. Smartse (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is currently two things: 1) a description of a FOSS project based on several other Java FOSS projects, non-notable per
WP:NOTWEBSPACE. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The developers of this software have been spamming every forum trying to push their product. There is no credibility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.87.9 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two comments on the article's talk page protesting against the deletion are both suspected sockpuppets of the creator, I have started an SPI.Acather96 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piltzintecuhtli

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

Has been classified as confusing or vague for over a month no that much information on it...you can try to improve it but difficult to do so. Whenaxis (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wrong forum for cleanup. Sources back up the "existence" of this mythological figure, the article's vagueness should be raised elsewhere. --Pgallert (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has two reasonable references, which is about two more than a lot of other articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the result is "Keep", then Piltzintecuhtli should probably be added to {{Navbox Aztec mythology}} … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
- Done – Since the outcome looks like a Done Deal, I went ahead and added it. — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable and encyclopedic. I bet Simon or a few of the experts have something on it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't had a chance to check my library yet but a quick look on Google Scholar was enough to show that Piltzintecuhtli is often regarded as separate from Xochipilli and that sufficient material for expansion of the article is available - and the chances are I have more info on my bookshelves. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 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, as things changed during the debate. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A Thousand Suns

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

Article creation is premature, as on now the article fails

WP:HAMMER. Article should be at minimum redirected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In what way does it violate
WP:HAMMER? The album obviously has a name. Powers ^T 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" Is there a tracklisting? Nope. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it says "name and track order". Only if both of those are unknown does WP:HAMMER, as written, apply. Powers ^T 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesnt. It clearly says both, name and track order. Even if there is only one, it still fails hammer. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see how it might be interpreted either way. If it said "If the name and track order together are not yet known", then I would agree with your interpretation. I interpret it as "If the name is not yet known and the track order is not yet known." In that case, either one being known invalidates the clause. Powers ^T 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep- there's enough sourced information there that an article is feasible. And last I knew,
WP:HAMMER was a guideline, not a set in stone policy. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Hammer is a strongly used guideline, its not set in stone but it is something good to go by. Regarding the sourcing, it only contains three references, the personal should not even be included considering the album hasnt been released so thats complete

WP:OR. And the only references used in the article are regarding the lead single and release date. So how is that considered good referencing? As for the article itself its not notable enough yet, that is why i propose deletion until more information becomes available. (I would support an incubation) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

HAMMER is a guideline regarding albums for which little to no information is known, articles that receive titles like Somebands Fourth Studio Album. Here, we have sourced information regarding the title, a producer, and recording information. Which is enough, at least in my opinion, to allow a basic stub on the topic. A redirect is at least feasible until more information is released. However, since this actually *is* the album title, deletion shouldn't be on the table, as its a reasonable search topic, and once more information is released, it would be preferable to simply undo the redirect and add the new information, as opposed to creating a new article from scratch. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As the nominator and I have both suggested, incubation would allow the article to be developed outside of the namespace until the album's track listing is verified. Until we get the track listing, this is a crystal ball. Cliff smith ^talk 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is neither policy nor guideline, but an essay which is often cited in lieu of actually checking whether an article subject meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
incubate until the track listing is confirmed, as the nominator duly noted. Cliff smith ^talk 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep, Possible Redirect: I personally have also seen WP:HAMMER as more of a guideline than an actual set-in-stone rule, but it is a well laid-out one, especially with regards to the level of it's simplicity and effectiveness across multiple categories including music, movies, and games. As of present, till at least next month (based on the current flow rate), pretty much little-to-no information on the album will likely be available, therefore, it is unlikely the article will move anywhere past stub class as of present. So, my present position is to let the article remain as a stub-class article, but if that is not the agreed upon consensus, I find a present redirect to be acceptable so the article will not have to be created from scratch as the base information is correct. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's article already has information about this album. Albums get advance stand-alone articles in rare cases, but since the amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about this one at present is indeed stub-class, this is not such a case. Incubation would mean that it wouldn't have to be created from scratch.

As a separate note, this article was deleted less than a fortnight ago—

tagged for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. I don't know if that applies anymore, but there still is not enough information about this album for it to have a stand-alone article quite yet. Cliff smith ^talk 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG; with the official announcement, the basis for the previous AFD outcome is no longer applicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not pass

it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article yet. It's already included at the artist's article, which is where it belongs until we get the track listing. Cliff smith ^talk 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That doesn't make a shred of sense. It satisfies the GNG directly (which means it passes NALBUM); WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay look, we do know the title and release date, so maybe it's not quite a WP:CRYSTAL violation as well, but it still does not pass WP:NALBUM because the necessary trifecta, as it were, of title and release date and track listing is incomplete. Plain and simple. Just because a subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is appropriate for inclusion in a stand-alone article. A Thousand Suns is already included at Linkin Park—basically everything here was already there—which makes this article redundant at least, for the time being. I just don't think that a stub's worth of information about this future album is enough to justify keeping it in the namespace right now. As I suggested already, we can easily incubate this until we get the track listing. Would you be opposed to that? Cliff smith ^talk 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That's implicit in my keep !vote, close to explicit. It meets the GNG and there's enough information to write a coherent article. Temporary deletion is a waste of effort, not unlike this tendentious argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't

WP:NALBUM an augment to the GNG? If that were the case then yes, it seems the most efficient course of action (seeing as more information should be released somewhat in the near-future) that a temporary redirect and incubation of the article makes sense. If NALBUM is not an augment and GNG overrides NALBUM in this case, then possibly the article will stay as it is. Besides, if an article first satisfies the GNG before any other specifics on notability, it seems slightly pointless to have the sub-policies in place. A complete deletion, though, seems a little too much. Garfield1675 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as I know, all the subject-specific notability guidelines, like NALBUM and NFF, are indeed augments to the GNG. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been or aren't cases where albums get advance articles, this just doesn't appear to be one. And I agree that complete deletion would be too much. Even the nominator would support an incubation. Cliff smith ^talk 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just leave the page, I don't know why you all have your dicks hard about deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.254.51 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a compelling argument... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y 67.241.254.51 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please either contribute to the conversation at hand or step away, but either way, cease your

AIV. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, as stub-- As of 22 July 2010, the official Linkin Park website [1] is now a webpage promoting the album and the cover artwork appears have been released. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the article has becomes acceptable, but with the title, release date, and album artwork released, and the lead single announced, there certainly appears to be plenty of information about the album. I would also suggest that if there is a way to add this without it being personal research, it would be useful to describe how the album artwork was revealed-- pixel-by-pixel via a TwitterBot. But at the very least, I would think the best course of action would be to mark the article as a stub, and wait to see how much more information about the album becomes available over the next few weeks as the lead single is released. 75.23.67.151 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

small note -- marked as a music-class stub article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep - Page should be kept, as information will increase for this page closer to the release date--Tristwin (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete – There have been enough sources and news articles published since 2008 detailing the writing and recording process of A Thousand Suns. It's easily within reach to create a detailed multi-paragraph section on this topic. If someone were to do this soon, I would vote keep. If not, then this article should redirect to Linkin Park#A Thousand Suns (2008—present) where such information has already been written. Either way, the title has been officially confirmed so there is no reason to fully scrap the article with a deletion (hence the unconventional "Not Delete" vote). Fezmar9 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - completely agree with Fezmar9, the album now has cover art, name, release date AND now tracking list, beside all the data concerning the development of the album, and the proximity of the release of the catalyst.män-et-arms (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well the track listing has indeed been confirmed, so everything looks good to me. Cliff smith ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything is in order now. I don't see the point in deleting the article only to recreate it in a few days or weeks with all of the same information. WereWolf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 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. JForget 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Balogh (footballer born 1992)

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

Very little text, no references and cannot be found on the Web on the western Adam Balogh can be found. Whenaxis (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable youth footballer who hasn't played professionally and doesn't pass general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, did the article at one point have any content other than the template? If not you could speedy it as db-blank -Drdisque (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. There is some content other than the template right now. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind -Drdisque (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been open for the better part of a month, and all I'm seeing here is no consensus to do anything at all. Courcelles (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Cardinale

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

American Idol also-ran. Almost no sources, no notability per

WP:MUSIC. Contains speculation/OR such as "In late 2007, it was announced that Lindsey had signed with Aria Records Nashville. Her name has since been removed from their website and it appears that Aria Records has released Cardinale from her contract." (As an aside, Aria Records has not proven notable enough for an article.) A search for sources turned up only information dating from her time on American Idol, absolutely nothing after the fact. She appeared on a Christmas album compilation which is also up at AFD for lack of notability. Last AFD was closed as speedy keep due to disruption. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted a year ago. Unable to locate sufficient reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to establish
WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The article was previously unreferenced, but just now I've added several citations, over several years up to 2009. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:MUSIC #4 #1 and #9. Aspects (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I hate to badger but I'm not seeing that she meets 4 or 9. I only see "occasional Idol-related performances" with only one show referenced and she came in 12th on Idol, not what I would consider placing. Her biggest non-Idol accomplishment is that she was a spokesperson for a local auto dealer? one non-charting single? I could go for Merge to
American Idol (season 4) but anything else would be far too generous. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I do not know what I was thinking, I meant to put #1 with the newly found sources by Paul Erik. I do consider being a finalist on American Idol as placing in a major music competition. Aspects (talk) 17:57, 9 July 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, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Being an Idol finalist alone confers notability. This seems to be the established threshold by the wikiproject, at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines, as well. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:MUSICBIO.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 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, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Second relist rationale. The article is a
BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect don't delete the history, the article can be recovered if she does anything notable outside placing 12th on a local tv show. Miami33139 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, although just barely. There are a couple of newspaper articles that are about her specifically. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I'm unconvinced there's enough coverage to pass GNG, even if they are a finalist. If they are and they're notable then there should be substantial coverage elsewhere too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Celebrity is not notability, American Idol finalist or not.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the last two, we're not dealing with
WP:IDOL) appears to have dealt with this issue time and time again, and looking through the history of various AFDs, I see broad precedent for the creation of articles on finalists. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

American Idol is an elimination competition. There's no "2nd place." There's one winner, and everyone else loses. No one places, ergo #9 does not apply. And that she appeared on the series does not make her the subject of the series, ergo #12 does not apply.Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, there is nothing even remotely true in what you just said. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Agree with above comments, by
WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to reiterate what I said in the deletion review I was unsure how to respond to others' comments here, because others are not stating what is insufficient about the sources I added. Multiple reliable sources discuss the subject, some of the articles discuss her exclusively—that usually is enough for
WP:NOTE, is it not? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly meets WP:N given the sources added by Paul Erik. I'm curious why those who feel she fails WP:N believe that when there are three sources that cover her in depth. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 12th place is not notable enough, not made a celebrity. Losing finalists who lost their fame after American Idol. Well, the show is a signing competition, not a local event. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review of the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article that are about the article's subject meets the Wikipedia Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does appear this topic has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, thus passing
WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:GNG by having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see a policy-based delete rationale here. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: When I first !voted on this AfD it was unreferenced. I now went back and have decided not to change my !vote. Other than finishing 12th on American Idol Ms Cardinale has twice performed at Ponchatoula's Strawberry Festival, become the spokesperson for the Bill Hood Automotive Family in Southern Louisiana, switched her major to journalism, released a single that did not chart, and signed with a label and produced no albums in 3 years. Is there coverage? Apparently yes. Of anything notable? I'm not seeing it. This page should be redirected to
American Idol (season 4). J04n(talk page) 09:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Coverage of something which you consider notable isn't required, just coverage. Otherwise, were I in charge, we'd have no articles on porn stars or any but the most notable athletes. We've agreed on WP:N as a way of judging notability. Yes, there can be exceptions to it (it's a guideline after all) but if you really want to replace WP:N with "I do or don't personally think this is notable" that's a pretty big step and I'd ask that you reconsider it. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case every highschool quarterback would be notable. I'm sorry but coverage of her appearances in a strawberry festival are not going to convince me that she is a notable subject. Spirit of the law should not be trumped by letter of the law.J04n(talk page) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in 3 states is unlikely in a HS quarterback and is a darn good sign of notability. Heck, honestly coverage of a HS quarterback in any detail is rare these days. I've not seen any such coverage in our local paper in the last 10 years. To see multiple RSes providing non-trivial coverage of a HS Quarterback would actually be a pretty good indication of notability. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs some work, particularly in the opening paragraph where notability is supposed to be indicated (should mention her modelling, spokesperson and recording deal), but the sources and content in the rest of the article indicates that the subject is somewhat notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article just does not tell us why she is important, as nice a person as she seems to be. Also, press coverage gives us permission to have an article on someone -- but it does not compel us to have one if there is nothing important for people to know about the person. Also if 1,000 years from now, when there will have been hundreds of Idol-like shows, is WP going to have an article on every finalist? That could be millions of people.Borock (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

IDF Tick Tock

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)

Per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this article is simple a collection of indiscriminate details of an event that happened recently. Its more of a news story rather than the historical event it is being portrayed as. Its serves little contextual purpose as it is not a major issue/event in the Israeli Defence League and certainly is not contexually significant to Tik Tok (song). It is simply a random sporadic event which captured some media attention. The page serves no purpose other than to describe what happened in the video as well as acting as a central page for other videos and to transpose indiscriminate details from the media providing no purpose. The event has had little impact upon the IDF or "Tik Tok". Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Appears to fail
talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

As I have concluded further down on this page, some time to think about this and seeing the discussion here has made me reverse my position, so Keep. __
talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong/Speedy/Snow Keep. I find this one of the more peculiar nominations of the month. The nom asserts the article is "non-notable". Despite the fact that the article was chosen to be (and was) featured on Wikipedia's home page. Despite the fact that this article attracted 4,600 hits in one day. Despite The Christian Science Monitor pointing out that the video was filmed viewed more than 1.6 million times online just days after being uploaded. Despite the 38 refs to the article. And the many more that are revealed by a simple google search or two. Despite the markedly broad international coverage – which a glance at the article refs reflects extends to Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta. In addition to the other countries reflected in the above google searches. Furthermore, the coverage includes coverage by some of the highest-level RSs, including the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor. And consists largely of articles wholly devoted to the video. This without question meets Wikipedia:Notability, in that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources". This is notability 101. I don't know if the nom's motivation here relates to his concurrent energetic effort to also delete the one-sentence mention of the IDF Tik Tok video from the Tik Tok article, per the RfC discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the reasons you give appear not to be sufficient if one reads
WP:EVENT
carefully. I did because I wanted to see this article kept, however, it appears to fit the exact description of an article which isn't notable despite of widespread coverage.
Here's the critical text: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

I think it is clear both that this story falls into the category "'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena" and that we do not know of any aspect of this which has given it "enduring significance". Actually, there was one thing: the fact that the IDF is going to make an instructional video for its soldiers why it is inappropriate to make such videos or to dance while on duty but I'm not sure that will suffice. __
talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is the more critical (IMHO, of course) text; the above quote from the guidance ignores the more specific reference to how the global scope of coverage impacts a notability determination here:
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources... In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.
There is more, but this captures the core elements. The scope of reporting here, broad, widespread, international global very wide coverage in diverse sources, including articles in the highest-level RSs devoted to the subject of this article, is just the sort of non-routine coverage that militates in favor of notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NN (besides being used as filler material on slow newscasts),
WP:RECENTISM. Merge to some viral video section at Military humor and then see if it is tolerated there. Delete any mention at the Tik Tok article, irrelevant to add 'trivia' section to all song articles that are used elsewhere. --Shuki (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

You seem to have limited understanding of what an AfD is for. No mandate can be given from this page on whether or how this incident should be discussed in other articles. __
talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep It was all over the 3 major newspapers in Israel. Surely that means notability. Broccoli (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets all the requirements of
WP:N and is easily and logically part of all the categories it belongs to: Category:Viral videos; Category:Flash mob; Category:Films about the Israel Defense Forces; Category:Israeli comedy and humour; Category:Israel Defense Forces cited on its page. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

comment but its
WP:NOTNEWS and its not an event of great significance. Take this example: "If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page? Being covered by reliable sources ALONE is not enough to make it notable. What about the event is so significant? Has it had a lasting impact? NO... its completely random event thats all. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

That's silly, Lil. As I've already told you, in response to that example, if in your example it: a) leads to 1.6 million hits in a few days; b) the wiki article on it gets 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it is covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – why then, you may have something there. But in your example, it would seem that your wife's incident would lack all the indicia of notability that are in evidence – in copious amounts – here. In fact, it is the coverage in RSs that is at the core of wiki's notability standard. Notability, not fame, is the standard on wiki, and we measure it by just such indicia. Indeed, it would seem that most wiki articles lack quite the level of notability, measure by such indicia, as are present here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said still does not address the concerns and I've noticed you've dodged the question I asked about my example. (rather articulately but nevertheless dodged). So are you suggesting that if my wife gave birth to a child whilst listening to "Tik ToK" and the incident recieved coverage from news papers and 4600 hits per day I could create an article for it? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not dodged them at all. I've addressed them directly. Let me simplify this. If you were to announce that you prefer one-ply toilet paper, or picking your nose with your pinky, or sleeping on the left side of the bed, and that were to attract: a) 1.6 million hits in a few days on a video of your statement; b) the wiki article on it were to get 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media were to cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it were covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – well, then, you would have a strong case for notability. Now, of course your question is a classic red herring. Why? Because those events would fail to attract that RS coverage, etc. Which is why our notability standard works. It gives us something to point to, other than "Does Lil's POV deem this to be notable". Something more objective.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lil-unique: Wait a minute, let's take some of the categories it's in. Looking over
Puppy-throwing Marine viral video (nothing significant, yet it portrays a marine killing a dog as if it's major.) We are living in the age of YouTube where such things are significant in terms of the time and that's why there are such subjects as viral videos and flash mobs and their related categories. There is also no question that this is a well-documented example that fits perfectly into Category:Israeli comedy and humour and Category:Films about the Israel Defense Forces with their other similar examples. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Using
other articles as a standard is NOT a suitable argument for this article or AfD unless said articles are GA or FA. No. of hits does not make something notable. IMO none of those should exist. I notice none of you chose to respond to the example I gave... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Lil--Perhaps you missed the following in the guidance that you quote. Inasmuch as you mis-state what it says. In pertinent part, it says: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Which, of course, is precisely what our fellow editor is doing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um Lil-unique: You ask ""If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved [sic] coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page?" – well, the only way to really answer your question correctly is if you actually took a video of your wife as actually asking for a song while giving birth, and you then uploaded that to YouTube and got a response that could be measured, we could all judge, but since you evidently have not done so, your example is irrelevant and does not hold any water, and your question has nothing to do with this video which has already garnered massive attention measured the only way it can be done by YouTube's hit counters and wider reporting in the world's media. IZAK (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again you've dodged the question I've asked. My point is just because something has happened e.g. this event, the actual happening of such an event in itself is not notable per the guidelines I've already given. Instead of diluting the discussion by jumping on every alternative answer why don't you answer the question I've asked? Because otherwise all of the comments you personally have made don't address the concerns in my nominating of this article for deletion. The question of the 'wife giving birth' is an example and the answer would have been no! Its not notable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I've answered your question. Explaining it another way, your wife giving birth example will (we can expect) fail to attract 1.6 million hits in a few days, dozens of articles devoted to it in RSs across the globe, 4,600 hits on a wiki article about it, etc. Why? Because it is non-notable. That is what distinguishes it from this article. Which has all of those indicia. And, therefore, is notable. It is these objective criteria that allow us to keep editors from deleting articles on a wholly subjective "IDONTLIKEIT" basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still stand by my nomination of the article but I can understand some of your POV. Like I said earlier I don't think wikipedia is a place for this sort of content and that's based on my interpretation of the guidelines which is obv. different to yours. Lets leave it as that and allow others to comment because its obv. neither of us are going to change our minds. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A video that generated as much coverage as this is certainly notable and I see no reason not to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –
WP:EVENT, quoting a passage about "Routine kinds of news events". Dog bites man is routine. Man bites dog is notable. Other soldiers have appeared in videos, that went viral. Were those other soldier-videos routine? Maybe. I dunno. But this article describes a controversy. The soldiers may be punished. So, it is not like the other soldier videos. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, you are right. After having some time to ponder the issue, and seeing the discussion taking place here, I am happy to reconsider the issue. __
talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete: one of millions of viral videos lacking notability. It's gotten some media attention, but that's not really the same as notable coverage. Much of the article seems to be puffery designed to inflate the importance of the video. That said, I wouldn't be too opposed to see it stay if some of the irrelevance was trimmed out. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Epeefleche.AMuseo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets massive news coverage around the world. Notable also because its the first time anyone has ever done this on patrol, not just in their own base. Dream Focus 01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Ok its obvious this is a
WP:Puffery here too. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

As you may or may not know, this page is not the place to discuss future edits of the article. We are here to decide whether or not to delete the article. You should make that suggestion known on the article's talk page when/if it is kept (or even now, as all things point towards the nomination being rejected). __
talk) 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually such a comment is appropriate here because if it gains enough support from others the admin who closes the AfD will list that as a condition. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not how AfDs are conducted. At least not any of the many AfDs I have witnessed. __
talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Do know I'm just going to give up commenting on this AfD (I've made my vote alread) because everything I say leads to an some form of clarification or counter-comment or elaboration from yourself. I have a right (and enough experience on wiki) to be able to make
WP:BOLD comments/suggestions. I am fed up of my comments being refactored. You appear to be trying to guide this discussion which is most certainly not how AfDs work. I have intitiated and commented on a fair few AfDs in my time so don't patronise me any further. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
confabulate 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Kudos to the nom for accepting the community's consensus. Point of clarification -- I don't believe Meco was being condescending. But rather, quite accurately (and with complete civility) reflecting wikipedia AfD practice. I recognize that nom is a seasoned editor, as is Meco, but my experience in this regard accords with that of Meco.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state what section under
talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Its just another Youtube video out of billions. With the right keywords any clip can get over a million hits. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the stupidest reasoning I have read in a very long time. I won't even bother to engage its merits. __
talk) 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT#NEWS. This is trivia. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please state what section under
talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:NOT#NEWS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please state what section under
talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep precisely because it is
Did You Know page, and I found it well-written and well-organized per the sources. "I just don't like it" is not a reason to nix a perfectly good article. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

comment, speedy keep is a ridiculous notion. Just say you want the article kept. Will people also stop try to make out that "I Just don't Like it" as my justification? I nominated the article because I felt that such content has no place on wikipedia because of the two policies I've quoted. Something which very few of the "keep comments" have addressed. Instead people have opted to side-step the issue and point to the media coverage as making it notable. My original concerns were that the IDF incident has had little lasting effect on the IDF or Tik Tok. It is not a noteworthy event IMO. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state what section under
talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
Most such events do not attract 4,600 wiki hits, are not viewed more than 1.6 million times online, do not have dozens of articles written about them, and do not have markedly broad international coverage that includes Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta. This is obviously different from "most events" in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are not, in fact, "millions" of viral videos that have gotten "millions" of hits. This one has. Also, you have to count carefully on Youtube. Popular videos like this one get posted and re-posted. The original posting was taken down, so we have no idea how many hits it got. But it was reposted. Here is a reposting that got 2,666,000 hits [2] there are several repostings with other odd titles and lots of hits.[3] [4] [5]How many millions of hits? I don't know. but not that many videos hit this big. Also, the Arabic press covered this heavily. Israeli soldiers dance during call to prayer, disrespect Islam, yada , yada40Chestnut (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious KeepIsraeli army patrol draws worldwide coverage. Of course it's notable.40Chestnut (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per
talk) 03:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Our notability criteria focus on
talk) 07:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You've changed your tune. Only early have you been agreeing with others who used the number of hits as a measure of notability. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: For some reason, that I can't fathom, you've stopped your inquiry abruptly short, rather than complete it. Please share with us which of the video you refer to have been mentioned in dozens of RS articles, of RSs of the highest level, with the article being devoted to the video, and the newspapers being geographically dispersed over 10 or more countries. Equally disturbing is your failure to mention the sentence immediately following the one you quote. Which says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Clearly, what is being referred to in the guideline is a very different animal that the one we have here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria which makes its notable for coverage in those RS's is different to the criteria that makes it notable for wikipedia. That much we've already discussed and established above. Many things get coverage by RS's but that doesn't mean they're notable or appropriate for wikipedia. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related controversy on song talk page

Since the issue is clearly related I will give a heads-up to contributors on this page that there is an ongoing Request for Comments at the song's talk page over whether or not to include mention of this incident on that page. Please see
talk) 06:06, 23 July 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. JForget 01:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University College School 1978

University College School 1978 (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)

Article is a picture that purports to show several notable individuals but does not indicate which they are. The article asks people to fill in the blanks to identify individuals. This is obviously going to be very difficult to provide sources for. noq (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transwiki to Facebook. Pburka (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commnt In addition, the image itself is too small to make out individuals anyway. The full resolution image is broken. noq (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this photo isn't
verifiabil. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Noq correctly draws attention to a fault with the image, which is mysterious: it seems to display fine in high resolution on Windows 7 machines, but fails to open in any browser under Windows XP. Since the article is valueless without hi-res access, this problem will either be solved or the article removed, which is why no "Keep" vote is registered now. On Noq's main point, I have privacy reservations about identifying individuals in such a photograph without their consent. With one or two exceptions I am not in a position to obtain such consent, which is why I identify only myself. Its publication in Wikipedia will permit those individuals, or editors able to gain their consent, subsequently to identify them in this stub. Such an article would fully meet notability and verifiability criteria because an original source image is inherently self-verifying, and the notability arises from the growing utility of this stub as a unique reference for many other articles. Only if the notable faces are not identified in a reasonable period of time in future should this be deleted. Since this is neither a vanity article nor of limited interest only to a small community of people, it meets the objectives of the Wikipedia community. Andrew Bud (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "You have privacy issues about naming people" but ask others to name them? As Wikipedia requires
WP:verifiable WP:reliable sources I don't think that people claiming to be people you identified would automatically be taken at face value. Someone saying this is me and I am X does not meet the verifiability criteria. noq (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The image doesn't display on Firefox 3.6.7 on Mac OS/X 10.6.2, either. Safari has no problem. However the image should also be deleted from Wikipedia. It is copyrighted and there is no fair use rationale presented nor can I easily imagine one as the image is not notable. Although there may be notable individuals in the image, there is nothing particularly notable or special about the image itself. If the purpose is to provide illustrations of the notable individuals in the image, then we would be better off encouraging them to submit snapshots of themselves than clipping them out of a copyrighted image. Pburka (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it may be notable (in some sense) that several people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles were all classmates at the same school, that does not necessarily convey notability to their class photo. Nor can I see much value in identifying their numerous non-notable classmates who are also in the photo. In fact, adding that information would make the article worse. Wikipedia is not a school yearbook. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't yet figure out what corrupts the image on some browsers, and so as I said above this article is worthless without it. Many of the points made above have some validity but I disagree, and sustain that because this image illustrates notable people as youngsters - imagery not otherwise present on Wikipedia - it is in itself notable.. The alternative would be to add the image file as an illustration to the entry of every notable figure. The image is also clearly of relevance to the history of UCS, which is why it deserves to be a stub. The benefits to Wikipedia of removing content of objective validity which is not self-promoting, false or of interest only to a single individual, thereby decreasing the sum total of objective knowledge in Wikipedia, has always perplexed me. However, these point are moot. Andrew Bud (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Space Cadets (trilogy)

Space Cadets (trilogy) (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)

Courtesy nomination on behalf
notability criteria for books. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with R. L. Stine. The series itself does not appear to be notable, however an argument might be made by some that the author is somewhat historically significant. The information in the article is minimal and could easily be included with the summary of the series found in the author's article. Taroaldo (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with R. L. Stine. The present content of the article does not show notability for the books. When a book series like Space Cadets (trilogy) is already out of print, and the article provides no reviews or third party sourcing, it is unclear why we should have a separate article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 18 July 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. JForget 01:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Lady

Fast Lady (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)

WP:BAND. Ghits on "Fast Lady" appear principally to be about the (unrelated) film The Fast Lady. Speedy declined -- or, rather, ignored -- so bringing to AfD. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:AUTO. And what is "cock rock", anyway? Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. A Google search found information about a movie(1962}, racing, and a link to Twitter, "FAST LADY would like to announce that the performance this Sat the 10th July at Colchester Arts Centre will be their LAST EVER live show. 4:35 AM Jul 8th via web", and apparently no TV shows ever.Otr500 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find sources for this band, but I couldn't find any. We might still be able to salvage this article but with its current state it's an obvious deletion. Oceansummer87 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 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. JForget 01:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason (chef) Ellis

Jason (chef) Ellis (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)

Contestant on
WP:BIO. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he wins the current season of Hell's Kitchen, he can be brought back. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this guy actually accomplishes something notable, something that reliable third party publications pick up on, we can create an article then. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:45, 19 July 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. no deletion argument except the nom JForget 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Raven Riley

Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (second nomination)

Raven Riley (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:PORNBIO and WP:ENT; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; GNews hits either trivial or relate to similarly named persons. Would-be starlet who made one porn video then got into lawsuits with her producers/merchandisers. Most sources are promotional, not independent of subject. Survived previous sock-infested AFD despite lack of legit keep !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AFDs --78.100.251.96 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Additionally, how many nominations is this? I'm seeing two 'second'nominations. --78.100.251.96 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Article passes the
WP:GNG, with several reliable sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as more sources are available. Searches finds coverage by WP:GNG has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you determined to embarass yourself, Michael? Most of those are just T&A pages that are hosted on minimally reliable "news" sites; the venerable "DERF magazine" page is just a bad translation (heavily T&A-illustrated) of the Wikipedia article, and the "Vanguardia" link reveals the otherwise unknown fact that Ms. Riley was responsible for the breakup of Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Roberts, a point that seems to have escaped the Hollywood press if not the entirety of the English-language media. It's always a good idea to read and review sources before you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your continued incivility when someone disagrees with your personal opinions, acts to make Wikipedia a sometimes unpleasent place to even try to offer an opinion. I made no claims about the sources, only showing that a search finds them... even if only on (your opinion) minimally reliable "news" sites. If these "minimally reliable news sites" show T&A of an actress who is known for her T&A, and it so offends you, then close your eyes. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on Wikipedia, but your denigrating any other who dares disagrees with you, embarasses both yourself and the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me, spare all of us such whining. You claimed the "sources" you alluded to helped satisfy the GNG. You didn't bother to check the substance of them; they miss being independent and reliable by a country light-year. T&A pages which include little more than the equivalent of "Raven Riley is a hot porn star. Look at these hot pictures of her" aren't independent, reliable sources and do nothing to contribute to notability. Your false suggestion that I'm trying to argue that the sources should be ignored because they're "offensive" is much less civil than anything I've said; I think the sources should be ignored because they're worthless. The bottom line is that this is a performer who made a single, thoroughly non-notable porn film and fails every relevant notability standard, and your argument shows only that you'll defend the inclusion of virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reference in the article convinces me she satisfies the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:06, 20 July 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. JForget 01:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval invasions of Britain

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 never like taking purely "bad" articles to AFD, it not being cleanup and all, but this one warrants it I fear.
In short, it's a violation of
WP:NPOV
. Unreferenced and full of statements of an entirely dubious nature, it tries to take an entirely arbitrary period (is 450AD medieval anyway?), then pick out selections. The result is not good.
I realise that this comes close to the definition "AFD is not cleanup", and if you think that the article could be made a go of, that it is better to have something than nothing even if the something risks completely mi-portraying events, then I would not be surprised. But needless to say, I disagree. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this. there are lots of similar artciels. But this one seems so poor that it smacks of some kids school report.I also think that as Britain has not been invaded that often we hardley need sperate articels on differing eras.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless unreferenced article duplicates information better presented in other articles. Edison (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Probably a good faith contribution, but this article doesn't seem to have any use that History of England doesn't already cover. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and of such low quality it is not likely to be improved without a total rewrite. Replace with redirect to England in the Middle Ages patsw (talk) 13:59, 19 July 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. JForget 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ST courier

ST courier (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)

Hit niyash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Contested" prod. Subject is Indian delivery company. No evidence this meets
WP:ORG. Article is just advert. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete … pure
WP:CORP … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{17:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply
]

Delete. No real claims of notability and I can't find any news articles about this company. The article may have been created by a
WP:SPA. I do, however, find it interesting that the article claims that the company bribed investigators with free airline tickets. That should be removed or sourced. Pburka (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable. I see a lot of primetime advertising in TV and they are opening many new branches. But not there yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:57, 19 July 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. JForget 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santos (Ugly Betty)

Santos (Ugly Betty) (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)

Delete - minor fictional character with no reliable sources to demonstrate independent notability. Fails
WP:PLOT. Character is already covered in character list and the article's name is an implausible search term; no need to merge or redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabia (Ugly Betty), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter (Ugly Betty) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila (Ugly Betty) for recent similar examples, all resulting in deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with all the other recurring characters listed in the Ugly Betty template. List of Ugly Betty characters is sufficient for these minor roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to
WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 23 July 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. JForget 01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Gambarro

Gina Gambarro (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)

Delete - minor fictional character with no reliable sources that establish independent notability. Violates
WP:PLOT. Character covered in list article. Unlikely that someone searching for Ugly Betty will remember and search for this minor character's name. No need for redirect or merge. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only appeared in a few episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a major character which might explain the lack of sources to
WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 23 July 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. JForget 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Knüttel

Dieter Knüttel (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)

Proposed as part of
Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability".Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't give any independent sources that subject passes
WP:MANOTE. Google search finds hits for a basketball player, hillclimb driver, and this martial artist, but I didn't see independent sources showing me martial arts notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - failing to see notability. ~~What is "MANOTE" by the way? I don't understand what that stands for. MMANOT is Mixed Martial Arts notability, but what is MANOTE? It's a confusing redirect.~~ Paralympiakos (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using MANOTE rather than MMANOT? Paralympiakos (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MANOTE is martial arts notability, MMANOT is MMA notability. He is a martial artist, not a mixed martial artitst. Astudent0 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 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.
talk) 02:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

League of Ireland in European competition 2010-11

League of Ireland in European competition 2010-11 (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)

No need for a
2010 League of Ireland#League of Ireland clubs in Europe 2010–11. Note: PROD was contested, thus AfD. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic can be—and is—adequately covered in
WP:NOTSTATS WFC (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Jay 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom.
2010 League of Ireland is the appropriate place for this content, and most of it is already there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - All relevant information is already contained in
2010 League of Ireland, and the relevant pages for both the club and the competition. There's no need for a fourth page with the information. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - It should be noted that the articles creator made the following comment on the talk page: "This article should be kept because it is a major part of the Irish season and I am aware it is well covered in the 2010 League of Ireland article, but I believe this page should be kept to give a clear representation of the information." Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Giant Snowman 20:35, 18 July 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha michels

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}}.

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

Natasha Michels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Another copy of the same material)(correction not infact the same material, but an unfinishhed lesser version)

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

17-year old painter, fails
WP:GNG. No relevant hits on Google News, or even on Google Web. Prod removed by IP without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can't find anything to establish notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both … no
WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very young artist who hasn't achieved notability yet. No reliable sources to indicate anything approaching notability. Definitely not ready for an encyclopedia. freshacconci talktalk 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -your all being quite ignorant, do u have any idea how the mca works? privatized contracts and witheld information all in the intrests of revenue. . What high esteemed australia artist can u find on the net, like one. please learn somethign about the topic and the way the industry works before u say its not notable, this is one of the few ways to actulaly beat there systems to get their names out there without breaching any coorparate laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) — Sr2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I have an assignment to do on a favourite young australian artist and this was my source. In my opinion her unique works are both engaging and inspiring. This page should be allowed to be viewed by others who could also utilise the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.109.83 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-19T10:52:29— 59.101.109.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Delete per nom. Interesting keep rationale put forth by IP: this is my source for my homework assignment. Lionel (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update: just yesterday ( 19th of july) one of her paintings sold for a youthful record of 93,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is the
WP:RS to support that claim? — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

to the comment above about your preciouse WP:RS, please gain some insight into the topic or atleast some common sense before you post comments, you really make yourself look like a fool.on a relataed note i'll be sure to try and get a 2nd hand copy of the (private) auctions manuscripts and email them to you... what is your email ?*sarcasm* Sr2020 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a
notability, sorry. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 08:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

ill do my best to actulaly get a copy of the manuscript then. sigh Sr2020 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A private copy of the auction manuscript is not appropriate documentation; that would constitute
original research
. If the sale price is indeed notably high (a "record"), then surely a reliable news source will find it worthy to report on, and you will be able to simply cite that coverage.

Incidentally, you appear to have more than a casual connection with the subject of the article. You should therefore make sure to familiarize yourself thoroughly with our
Conflict of Interest guidelines before commenting or editing further. Hqb (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

please justify your claims against me. also u cleary do not understand the relation between cont art and localised media Sr2020 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No claims, just a friendly reminder about an important Wikipedia guideline that you need to be aware of. Hqb (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate the thought, but i was already well aware of this guideline. cheers Sr2020 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The biggest claim for notability would be being part of the MCA Collection : New Acquisitions 28 July 2009 - 31 January 2010. A google search finds this with no mention of Michels. Searches for variations on "Natasha Michels", "New Artist", "The Museum of Contemporary Arts", "Artist of the Year Awards" and "2009" reveal nothing other than this wiki article. Frankie Magazine has a web presence but again there are no hits for "Natasha Michels". It would be helpful if the article creator would provide at least an issue number and page number for that particle issue. As expected, google reveals nothing about the record sale added. Without a single reliable source none of this can be verified and given
assume good faith and not draw any conclusions about any of this. freshacconci talktalk 12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both - not notable per
WP:ARTIST. No reliable evidence that this artist has yet produced a body of work that would justify inclusion. None of the arguments for 'keep' address the core issue of notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can't find any evidence for the claims in the article, either. The painting 'Golopesis' is obviously not as known as claimed, not having even made it into a blog. No connection between the artist's name and the sum quoted. I would suggest to the creator and any other supporters that they refrain from calling us ignorant and actually look at the relevant Wikipedia policies. If they don't like them, they can always go somewhere else like LinkedIn or FaceBook. This is an encyclopaedia. They aren't. Peridon (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have u taken time ot look at the mca website, its jsut a selfpromoting peice of junk intrested in furthering profits, it does not tlel speciifcly of any artists show exhibitions etc all it does is promote. they have tight strict contract laws with artisit mainly because of things like the internet whihc make information so easily gotten a killer to attrating intrest ot a museum. they prefe rot keep things "traiditonal and classy" piublishing books programs etc anything thye can to get people down to the msueum to learn for themselves. I have given date of frnakie but i can add issue specifis if u like. also their auctions are not publicised and are ivnite only which outcome snot given to press or public in t e intrest of the msueum,artist and msot importantly the buyer. this is one way to beat there tightntess and ifnally get peoples names out there who desevre it, this is nto so much a battle of michels but a battle to break the norm, beat the system etc etc sorry bout the typing etc etc etc 13:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs)

i may also request that any comments made by user:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome should not be taken into consideration because of the racial biased he brings to the topicSr2020 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but... Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, Wikipedia is not a tool for fighting the establishment (or terrorism, or Mrs Brown at No 43 or whoever). A secret auction that cannot be verified is not a referenceable thing. Peridon (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it can b varified, give me couple days to get a copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a
verify the information. Not saying that you would do it, but anyone can put together an official looking document. So if you get a copy of the document and post it that does not verify that the document is legitimate. I hope you understand. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

ahk fair enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article may be used to expand the Sydney art scene which has been developing quite rapidly during recent years. The artist must be quite notable to exhibit at the MCA (which do have quite a strict publication policy) and to have sold a piece for that sum at so young an age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.233.87 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) — 60.229.233.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It might be notable if there were any evidence of either claim... Peridon (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've worked with this editor after speedy-deleting the first version of this article - she eventually produced enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion, but has never been able to substantiate it. Without any reliable sourcing, the claim of notability does not hold, and the assertions of near-notability either aren't credible or can't be verified. Claims of discrimination are specious - the lack of sourcing extends to the background of the artist, and in any case, unreferenced biographies are also subject to eventual deletion, regardless of assertions of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what claims of discrimination is one refering to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely sure, but they may have been referring to this edit that you made that talks about someone who hasn't even commented on the AFD being racist. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm cant find his exact post either but the racism didnt come on this but infact my own talk page thigny for my account. He basicle said anybody who does not have an english education( ie me being sri lankan born) must be very very very stupid which i find very racist to any non english speaking country and also quite discriminitory to any one less fortunate in english speaking countries.i think at the time he wasnt signed in and commented under the ip of:70.21.13.215 but i can not be entirely sure my only guess to this is that he refered to my comment below this post about email in his racial rant. Sr2020 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only person to bring race into this was you. The IP editor just pointed out that you ought to pay more attention to basic spelling and grammar if you want people to take you seriously. Your comments do give the impression of someone who simply can't be bothered to write proper English, not someone who is merely not a native speaker. And as a matter of fact, it is quite proper to expect contributors to an English encyclopedia to display a minimal level of proficiency in that language. Occasional honest mistakes are perfectly understandable and excusable; blatant disregard of the rules is not, and calling people "racist" out of the blue is definitely not appropriate, either. Hqb (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so do u agree then anyone without an english education ios very very stupid? also wikipedia isnt stircly an english encyclapedia Sr2020 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Wikipedia is not strictly an english encyclopedia, it is multiple encyclopedias in many languages. This Wikipedia that you are posting to is strictly the English one. SO people do expect other editors to try to display a minimal level of proficiency. Your English is very hard to read but I think we understand your points. There are people without an English education who are very smart and there are people with an English education who are very stupid. Where the education comes from or what language they speak has nothing to do with their intelligence level. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats was exactly my point thankyou gb fan and is why i had a big problem with what biginome proejct(cant rmb name exactly) said and why hpb supported it with a very hurtful tone towards me(may not of been intentially) Sr2020 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you honestly don't know which of "you" or "u" is the proper spelling, then no, you probably shouldn't try to contribute to the English Wikipedia, regardless of your general level of intelligence. If you do know, but simply don't care, and still expect everyone else to pay full attention to your comments, then you are indeed probably "either very young or not very very smart". Now, can we please get back to discussing the merits of the Natasha Michels article? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i do know the difference but i sitll tyr to limit the amount of letters word i use and stick to thigns i know so i dont get confused and become incoherant im sure u quite able to udnerstand what "u" is refering to and i belive i should try to contribute i live in australia now and i need to learn to better adapt and immerse myself within its culture i onyl try to help and edit and add thigns and when i do edit proper pages i will take my time and continuely check and whatever i miss hopefully it isnt to much for someone to help me out. i feel veyr unrespected by you at the moment as im only trying to contribute as i thought wikipedia wnated but im being met very apphrensivly, u continue to be cruel wihtout any hint of remorse and u continue to hint upon discrimination to those lacking english skills saying they have nothing to offer engish society and encylpedia then top of it of with a quotation and refernce back to the terribly hurtful racial remark. Please be more compassionate, because i can not continue to discuss the articles merit when i feel im being targeted i get hurt and my comment as uv probly seen turn into unfair anrgy rants that dont add to the topic at all (like this one for example which i apoligse for ina dvance but i needed ot be ehard) Sr2020 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I would have assumed someone with a good command of English, but a poor command of - or an indifference to - typographical accuracy. The spelling errors in the main are typos not a lack of knowledge of the language. A use of txting comes to mind, too. I have had quite some experience with users of English as second language, dyslexics and people whose fingers can't keep up with their minds. (Me, for one in the last case...) Slow down. There's no prize for speed. There is advantage in getting your point over clearly. (I am currently writing some pieces narrated by a person whose spelling is way behind their intelligence. It's great fun, and not nearly as easy as it sounds...) Peridon (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Young artist not particularly notable, certainly not encyclopedia material yet...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Unusual that for such a specific claim-- highest paid Australian artist at 17--there are no news hits. Hoax? JNW (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so many paintings are dols every dayy, fairly high priced paintings are sold every week, high priced paintings ar esold every month-year with extreme unpredictable time variations and patterns. The "internet" is rarely told as stated before because of agremeents and suchs between buyers holders etc etc i know this doenst help the claim and wont sotp being dleted cause no proff but i just needed to combat the question of hoaxs Sr2020 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be happy to have my suspicions disproved. One has been down this road before, and is wary of bold claims supported only by high dudgeon. Bring on the reliable sources please. JNW (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm happy to be proved wrong too. But, if these things are secret, we can't use them - because we can't check them. I would have thought, however, that a very high price paid for a very young artist's work would not be kept secret. Purchasers of paintings like to keep their value high, and secrecy works against this. (In the case of Old Masters, other factors come into play...) Interesting that a copy of this article (copied and pasted complete with square brackets and cn tag has appeared at Zimbio - posted by someone claiming to live in Beijing. Not a valid reference, of course, but interesting....... Peridon (talk) 09:50, 24 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Dombrowski

Louise Dombrowski (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)

Delete No evidence of notability. The only "references" to pages which give only very brief mentionsi. The article itself says the character appears for only "just a few seconds", and the claim to significance seems to rest on the unattributed and unsourced subjective view that the character "is one of the most memorable". PROD was removed with no explanation.
talk) 13:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines as per above. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing to establish notability, the wording of the article itself points to this character not being notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article provides 4 different references that establish notability and show the importance and significance of the character and scene for Twin Peaks fans. Nadavkna (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references that Nadavkna refers to above, to establish notability, are specious. They include a transcription of the dialogue to Episode 15, music reviews and a review of a boxed set DVD of Twin Peaks - in which "The great moments from season two's later episodes become increasingly isolated, restricted to such incidental vignettes as Ben and Jerry Horne's (Richard Beymer and David Patrick Kelly) virgin-no-more recollection of the flashlight-twirling Louise Dombrowski". In other words, the subject of this article is mentioned only in passing and within the context of the music used in her scene. I still see no evidence of the character's notability within the story-arc of the show that would merit a standalone article. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The different reviews of the soundtrack and the series all relate specifically to the scene, which is of signifacant importance for Twin Peaks fans. The majority of the article also refers to the scene, and not to the character itself. Due to the notability of the scene and the fact that the character does not appear in any other episodes of the series, this scene is known and connected soley to the character by TP fans. Please also note the comments by Twin Peaks fans to the scene (one of many uploads) in youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_OnR0QK0k Nadavkna (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) It's a brand new article and is still being actively developed, so the nomination is premature. 2) Despite how trivial the topic seems to be, there are several sources already in the article which discuss the character or her minor appearance. Overall, I expect the final outcome may be to merge it somewhere appropriate rather than have it as a standalone article, but let's give the editor developing this article the benefit of the doubt, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read those "several sources"? A couple of them do not mention Louise Dombrowski, and the others do not by any stretch of the imagination give substantial coverage.
talk) 11:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If the creator keeps a copy and finds references that comply with Wikipedia's standards, they can try again. It seems to be a very minor incident, and I am rather surprised that the character was even named - 'Girl with flashlight' would be more usual in a case like this. It was obviously not enough of a part for a professional actor (or dancer) to be hired for. Possibly a mention in the article about Twin Peaks could be made, but a whole article is hardly merited. Peridon (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what if it's a minor incident or only a few seconds long? the entire notability of the scene is based on the fact that it's a short almost hidden scene, unrelated to other TP plots. Do you know "Before The Law" by Franz Kafka? It is only a very small chapter inside a book, about a page length, and still it is one of the most influential and significant works in literature and western culture. And obviously it has its own article in Wikipedia...The length of the work is hardly a relevant issue. Nadavkna (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a discussion of the significance and meaning of this scene by someone like Jacques Derrida, I might be more impressed. But remember that Bill having an article doesn't mean Ben gets one as a matter of course. I have read most of Kafka, but I will confess to not having watched Twin Peaks. Mind you, I don't know if it was shown over here, and I see very little TV anyway (not having a working set or current licence and managing to avoid watching other people's sets whenever possible). I base my opinions here on the article, not on being a fan. While Twin Peaks does have notability, I fail to see that this scene does, and also cannot see how it could compare with 'Before the Law'. Peridon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment & Request For Clarification. I still don't get it. This article is, by implication, about a TV show character: who appears in one, brief, scene only; who has no dialogue in that scene; and, most importantly, whose face we do not see. On that basis, how is the article justified? What notability is demonstrated?

Now, if the article were to be about the scene itself, in which this character appears, and its relevance or notability within the context of the show and the story-arc, then I can see that there is a rationale for the article. Question is - what's it to be? "Louise Dombrowski" or "The Hook-Rug Scene"? Either way, perhaps we should be discussing the rationale for a merge to Twin Peaks rather than a standalone. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPerhaps it will be possible to publish it as a standalone article under "The Hook Rug Dance", as this is also the name of the instrumental music piece appearing as a track in the Twin Peaks soundtrack album, (and not under the character's name). Of course this will require a few changes in the opening lines. Nadavkna (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough direct coverage for a standalone article. But
Drive with a Dead Girl would have a better chance at surviving since episodes are usually given a bit more leeway than other fictional content. (Assuming coverage in reliable sources can be found.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:58, 23 July 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. This can be transwikied under request from any sysop of Wiktionary. My expereince says they are unlikely to want it, however. Courcelles (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntold

Voluntold (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)

Dictionary definition and neologism. There is coverage in urban dictionary and some similar resources, but not sources I'd generally consider reliable. In searching Google News, there is usage (about 50 hits?) but nothing I saw there that provides coverage of the term rather than simply using it (see
WP:NEO.) I'm recommending either outright deletion or transcoding to Wiktonary. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Transwiki and delete to
WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete per above. It's not really a topic. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete It's not a totally made-up term [7], more of a slightly-known neologism, but it does not belong here. If it is transwiki'ed it should be as the present tense, voluntell, not the past tense voluntold. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete This is a dictionary definition and this isn't a dictionary. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEO, ~~though I do not object to a transwiki, either~~. Novaseminary (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary as they do not want this article: it lacks sufficient references and they will just have to go to the trouble of researching and deleting it all over. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 29 July 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 keep, no valid deletion rationale, no delete votes, and the only complaint has been addressed after nomination.
Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Victorian Railways M class (diesel-hydraulic)

Victorian Railways M class (diesel-hydraulic) (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 hardly any information.
sillybilly piggy 10:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A lack of length and information such as this makes an article a stub, which I have flagged it as. It is not a deletion issue. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a bad, poorly written and formatted article should never result in a deletion. There are enough
WP:RS to note existence and hence ability to pass notability. Should have been tagged for formatting and sources, not deletion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Falcon Darkstar Momot--SPhilbrick T 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per invalid nomination. DubZog (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 July 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begin (computer game)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Begin (computer game)

Articles for deletion/Begin (computer game) (2nd nomination)

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)

(Find sources: begin tactical starship simulation)

Article does not present any reliable sources for verification, nor provide a rationale for notability (
WP:VG/RS) Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is clearly a historic and notable computer game, from the early days of computer programming. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but in what way is it notable? Marasmusine (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of
reliable sources, even a revise search in WP:VG reliable sources (with the title, year and developer) turned up nothing. May be notable for classic gamers, but lack of sources state that it isn't notable for Wikipedia unfortunately. --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep At one time this game was "the best and most detailed simulator accessible to the blind." Reviews of this game abound in early PC magazines whose indices unfortunately have not yet been put on Internet. LionelT (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that's not the case, but the sources need to be provided and placed in the article to prove it. I would suggest flagging the article for {{rescue}} and someone may possibly be able to help. Without sources we can't prove its notability, old or new. --Teancum (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. does anyone here have access to an index of periodicals, and can they help to try to start tracking some of this stuff down? It looks like in this case, some processed wood pulp will need to be called in to help the electrons!!! :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...have you guys seen
this discussion???! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Audyssey and PC-SIG references. Seems like the criteria that incepted this AFD has been resolved. -CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reference to Audyssey Magazine established notability. Dream Focus 01:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and per previous AFD that had several valid keep arguments echoed above, was closed as keep against the delete request from the nominator [8] and was followed by a merge.[9] --Kkmurray (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
comment 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I'm still eager to see the magazine references mentioned last November, as it still needs to be significant coverage to meet our notability threshold. Since further efforts are being made to rescue the article, I'm willing to have the AfD closed with the proviso that it be reopened if all the coverage turns out to be trivial. Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources so far merely show
general notability guidelines. Right now there's one critical review an little-to-no coverage elsewhere. I did find one mention in a Metacritic feature, but it's merely a mention of Begin and Begin 2. With other, more significant references this could probably be added to increase notability, but isn't enough to help the article on its own. --Teancum (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Author posted on 7/21/10 he will scan in 3rd party reviews this weekend [10] Lionel (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can a forum member chase this up please? Marasmusine (talk) 16:36, 26 July 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. JForget 00:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Krall Fry

Maia Krall Fry (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)

Article about an actress who is currently non-notable. Acting less than a year (according to the article) and best known for roles in films which are still only at the filming stage - she has yet to make a name for herself. Appears to have appeared on stage, but not attracted any independent coverage. No objection to recreation
if she makes a name for herself, but right now she has not. I42 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. We could probably have speedied this. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Falcon Darkstar Momot--SPhilbrick T 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - should have been speedied - 100% pure
WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is not notable yet. If she becomes notable, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is
there. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash

2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash (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)

The article is concerned with a crash that does not meet notability guidelines.
WP:AIRCRASH states that military aircraft crashes are rarely deserving of their own articles and I see nothing in this, such that it should be one of those rare articles. Is it the first involving the type; no. Is it the deadliest; given there have been prior fatal accidents and the normal crew is five, probably not. Has it resulted in changes in procedures etc.; apparently not. YSSYguy (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Very sad that these young men died. But about 5% of Americans do die in accidents, so about 150,000 a year. This accident is just not that notable.Wolfview (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:AIRCRASH. Not a notable military accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete tragic news item, but no indications of notability. --SPhilbrick T 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - BilCat (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to lack notability as an aviation incident and as a military event. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The reason this crash is notable is because the E-2C is usually such a safe aircraft. Also i have found and added ref`s. The article can be expanded upon and a quick google news check brings up plenty of references
talk) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment just about all aircraft types are usually safe, and as several E-2s have been lost due to in-flight fires it is arguably less safe than many other types. I cannot see from available resources that the issue with the AoA indicator the previous day has much bearing on the accident; while I am not familiar with US Navy carrier take-off procedures, I would think that the pilot would be looking at other instruments immediately after a cat shot at night, such as the attitude indicator, altimeter and VSI. The google news check tends to suggest that the article runs foul of
WP:NOTNEWS. YSSYguy (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I'm the one who started this article, but the policy does appear to state that single aircraft military crashes don't usually merit separate articles. There are exceptions, but I don't think this article is one of them. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 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 per
WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael G. Foster

Michael G. Foster (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)

Non-notable martial artist. Fails to meet any of the criteria in
WP:MANOTE
. His claim to fame was founding an offshoot (found non-notable by AfD) of a martial art that was also deleted for lack of notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent sources and fails
WP:MANOTE. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I find nothing that shows this guy is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The various organizations within the the Yoshukai have put up their own articles, so you're not seeing the full scope of the kai which is mostly due to the development actions of Mike Foster. I'll work on the references. Pkeets (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to go back a ways for sources. The practitioners who brought karate to the US in the late fifties and early sixties are now in their seventies or eighties. Pkeets (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, check the article now. I rewrote it to show notability and added third party references--I believe there are now five plus. How many do you want?Pkeets (talk) 22:32, 8 July 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, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Retain The article now meets the notability requirement. Pkeets (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote just once. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have read through the article and performed a cursory search for sources. I think the subject would meet criteria 1 (subject of independent documentary) and 4 (finalist in significant competition) of
WP:WPMA/N, but the article does not specify what the USKA is (or was), and provides no reference for the European Karate Champion title. If the USKA and European competitions can be shown to be significant national/international tournaments, I think that would provide better support for notability. Janggeom (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The USKA was the United States Karate Association and was the first karate organization in the United States, founded by Robert Trias in 1948. Trias also opened the first karate school in the US in 1946. The USKA became one of the largest associations of karate instructors in the nation, and through this organization Trias was also instrumental in setting up and promoting the first karate tournaments in the nation, as well as the first world-wide competitions. The Euro-Cup Competitions are overseen by the European Karate Federation.Pkeets (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Has been improved but we need more clarity on whether the improvement is enough
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Improvement aside, he appears to be a man who has a job. I'm not seeing the notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I could not find the documentary. The criteria at
WP:WPMA/N would seem to indicate that you need more than just an appearance in the finals of a significant competition, and I would tend to agree. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

See Swift, Jack. "The Giant of Southern Karate." Black Belt Magazine, February 1973, p. 31.

Keep In its current state, the article is well-written and well-referenced. To me he seems to be much more than just any man with a job... his actions have gained what I consider widespread coverage. It's another case of something that doesn't make world-wide mass media, yet is clearly still very important to a large number of people. DubZog (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the article is much improved. I still don't see much in the way of independent sources that show he meets
WP:RS. I know it's hard to get good sources for the early martial arts pioneers in the U.S. Papaursa (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The tournaments are not unspecified. The USKA conducted the only national tournament circuit in sixties, and the USKA Grand Championship was the only national championship at that time. The supporting evidence for the four-year championship title isn't bad. One reference is a history page from Tampa Bay, where Foster had his first dojo, and the Chito-ryu source independently verifies this. The article in Black Belt verifies the Florida title. Pkeets (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Yoshukai Karate Seems to rely to much on hearsay.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on why you think that. Thanks DubZog (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of unsourced claims, such as all those trophies. Also I am not sure what all the sources seem to be used for.. Some appear to not be supporting the text of the articel but mealry that something exsts. . I think all the sources need checking.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the 1973 source Black Belt Magazine's documentary article "The Giant of Southern Karate" which covers only Mike Foster and references his retirement (undefeated) from the Florida championship position. Regarding the Chito-ryu karate schools and the national USKA title, here's a quote from the Chito-ryu source(unaffiliated with Yoshukai since 1971):

"In January 1963 Dometrich Sensei attended a karate tournament in St. Louis, Missouri sponsored by James Wax, Bob Yarnall and Ansei Ushiro of the Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu Karate Federation - Shoshin Nagamine's students. He met a very tall, extremely impressive individual named Mike Foster, who had been a student of Sensei Watanabi and Sensei Mamoru Yamamoto, who was a Chito-ryu Sensei from Northern Kyushu. Sensei Foster had studied karate under Yamamoto when he was in Japan as a member of the U. S. Air Force. Sensei Foster later became the United States karate champion in kumite for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. During this time Sensei Foster headed many karate schools which were part of the U. S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation."Pkeets (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references for the championships, and put in sources at the "citations needed" tags. Pkeets (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article supplies secondary references for the following from
WP:MANOTE
:
1. Subject of an independent article/documentary (Swift, Jack. "The Giant of Southern Karate." Black Belt Magazine, February 1973, p. 31.)

2. Founder of notable style (Yoshukai International - see list of international organizations)

4. Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) (United States Karate Asssociation national champion from 1966 to 1969) Pkeets (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not all of your sources seem to support the text, also I wondert if http://yoshukaitampabay.com/History.aspx is RS. Also you rasie antoiher issue, copyright violations. Much of this articel seems to be lifted verbatum form other sources. Also your quote says "United States karate champion " not "USKA champion". Also the The Giant of Southern Karate source says he won the Grand nationals in florida it does not say "Florida Karate State Champion", and in the title says he gave up the state championship, but not which one (thorough it may have been Florida) it does say that he says he is Florida heavy weight champion, but the article does not confirm this. Moreover which tornament did he win, is it a notable one? Yoshukai International is an organisation, what style does he practice? The only citeria I think he might meet is 1, but is it independant? Also (a general question) does meeting only one of these count (also I would ask you how does this man not meet "1.Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art)? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short, attributed snippets of a piece used for the purpose of commentary or education is generally considered fair use under copyright law. Plagiarism is the use of another's language verbatim, but here again, the work is attributed. Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, so it is required to use material from secondary sources. However, it's best not to have verbatim passages in the article without using quotes. If you see something in particular that should be quoted, please point it out. Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After complaining about verbatim language above, now you're quibbling because the language doesn't exactly match? Also, I notice you've made a comment at the article that it should be "more in keeping with wording in sources"? The USKA Grand National Champion was the US champion at the time, because there was no other national competition from 1966 to 1969. Note the use of capitals: USKA Grand National Champion is the specific title, while "US karate champion" is not. I expect that Tampa Bay is reliable--it appears to be part of the subject's organization, which is more likely to have specific information on the activities of the founder, whereas other sources are more likely to be general references, as pointed out above. Pkeets (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE lists national competitions as significant, and the USKA was the only national competition at the time, so the title meets the requirements for notability. Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source for an independent documentary. It is commercial, but it provides an excellent record of what was going on at the time. All articles would have been evaluated by the editors for "importance" to their readers before they ran, which indicates Foster was interesting and important enough for a full documentary article.Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Please follow the links in the article for more information. The style is Yoshukai and the organization is Yoshukai International. Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In responce to USKA Grand National Champion this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=The+USKA+Grand+National+Champion&source=bl&ots=G7up2AhfC3&sig=0vn_IPZLNSTBg1czBmqGQGz5Zh8&hl=en&ei=IZxFTPCRA4Si0gT06823BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20USKA%20Grand%20National%20Champion&f=false seems to imply there are more then six winners a year (I assume in wieght cats) which one did Mr Foster win? Also I note that My Foster is not mentioned as a winner, yest the claim is made he won that year. So we still need a source for that claim. By the way I doubt his own schools website is RS. This http://karate-in-english-lewis-wallace.blogspot.com/2008/04/tournaments-and-promoters.html seems to imply that hte claim that "The USKA Grand National Champion was the US champion at the time, because there was no other national competition from 1966 to 1969" may not be true. Also it does not list Mr Foster as a winner of "USKA Grand Nationals". is Yoshukai a notable style? Also did he invent the style or just the organisation, as every source I have found says that Yoshukai was created in 1963 by Mr Yamamoto?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at Wallace and Lewis, then I think you're looking at the PKA, which was organized in 1974. It's fairly clear from the Black Belt article that Foster would have been the heavyweight champ as it gives his height and weight. It's a judgement call on the the organization vs. style question. I personally think all the Yoshukai organizations whould be considered the same style. However, it does appear that Yoshukai International was a pretty large organization at its height with a large number of schools and students claiming Foster as their Hanshi. Pkeets (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not follow your first point, what is it in repose to (if its in reposnse to my first source it says clearly 1967, the year Mr Foster ids supposed to have one, by the way how many cats are there?)? As to your second, we cannot make assumptions, besides we still need RS claiming he won. It does not matter how large the organisationn is. to count for criteria 3 he has to found a notable style, not an organisation, he did not found the Yoshukai style. Also you cannot make claims not expressly supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had a look at your sources. I suspect the reliability of the blog source. I may be in error that the USKA was the only national "karate" organization in the sixties, but isn't Kenpo Chinese arts? I expect weight and rank classes would have varied by tournament, but I have no access to this kind of detail from tournaments in the 1960s. There are multiple sources that reference Foster as the winner in 1967, included one referenced in the article from an independent Chito-ryu history, so I'm unable to resolve this conflict. I notice that the Yoshukai sites list Foster as Kancho, which means head of the style. Again, this seems to me a judgement call, but as he's noted for adapting traditional techniques for full-contact fighting, then the technique may have departed from earlier Yoshukai sufficiently to call it the beginnings of a different style.Pkeets (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It dose I thought it was a type of wedgie? By the way head of style would not mean originator. I sugwst you find a source that says he founded the school (or that his version is sufficantly differnt to be a new style (and also a notalbe style)).

By the way we may be dealing with old politics. The blog does not list Mr Foster as winner of the USKA Grand Nationals, but it does not list any winner it ignores the whole period. Given that fact rher was a split it may be that we (perhaps) are delaing with different USKA Grand Nationals or the same one but having stripped him of his titles (or all kinds of sillyness I have not thought of). We would need to clear this up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(tab out) I see that Chito-Ryu Breakaways lists Foster as "founder" and separately from Yamamoto. ( http://www.chitoryu.com/breakaways.htm )
I agree that there may be some politics involved. How do you propose we clear up the conflict between sources? I thought Foster met the notability guidelines, or I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to write the article. Again, there are multiple sources online that refer to him as "karate champion," or "national karate champion," but even the sources used within the article disagree on the details. The USKA was dissolved in 1999, and I doubt original records from the sixties would be available anywhere. Pkeets (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is talking about the organisation, not the style "In 1980, Foster would break away from Yamamoto to establish his own organization, The Yoshukai International which is unaffiliated with Sensei Yamamoto's Yoshukai Organization". Unfortuantly I doubt there is a way to resolve the conflict in sources, and as such I do not bleive that notability has really been met. It might be better to merge this with Yoshukai Karate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree. The sources may disagree on dates but it's fairly clear that Foster was a notable national/international champion in the sixties, and that he made significant contributions to the development of world-wide karate as a sport in the late 20th Century. Notability doesn't expire, and the conflict doesn't negate the fact that the championship is reported by multiple sources. The question is how to handle the conflict in the dates.Pkeets (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Yoshukai International was established in 1977 (33 year history) and lists schools in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Germany, Latvia, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (international, reports large number of students) and seems to have notable practitioners ( I find Calvin Thomas winning a championship final right off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNb1tBaV7RA ), but I don't immediately see the independent documentary. My judgement is that Yoshukai International is somewhat notable, but maybe not sufficiently to have its own article without the rest of the Yoshukai body of work.Pkeets (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting all of the guidelines in
WP:MANOTE isn't required to establish notability, BTW. See Joe Lewis (martial artist) for example, who is apparently only a notable competitor without other qualifications. Pkeets (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

How's this? "In the USA, sources list him as the United States kumite champion 1966 through 1969." This is followed by the Tampa Bay listing of the USKA title, which has slightly different dates. There may be more than one championship involved. Pkeets (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while checking around, I've located another championship: In 1970 Foster won the black belt heavyweight trophy at the second U.S. International Karate Championships. (See Cirone, George. "Karate Kop-Out." Black Belt Magazine. June 1970, p. 48.) The article seems to be complaining because he declined to participate in a competition between the weight classes at the end of the championships. Note that they have left Delgado out of the list of kumite winners, so their reporting of results isn't especially accurate. http://books.google.com/books?id=pc4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=larry+pate+karate&source=bl&ots=ZYDsFWn3LP&sig=fiaCLKYakFpdz2Y5bEvj7HCSJn4&hl=en&ei=Kt9FTOSuKsX_lgeq7-jsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=larry%20pate%20karate&f=true Pkeets (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this does is confirm to me that this is going to be hard to prove notability as the sources are so contradictory.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a win reported in the USKA Florida Open 1968 p. 56. http://books.google.com/books?id=aM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=mike+foster+karate+trophy&source=bl&ots=A7-6Em3orm&sig=g124-z9j45drPye7wXRl-rJEvOc&hl=en&ei=kvdFTMrwHoO8lQfWsOTsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true Here's an article that describes him as a "three time" USKA Grand Nationals winner. http://books.google.com/books?id=PdYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=Mike+Foster+karate&hl=en&ei=hflFTI-FC4G78gbB6rCLBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mike%20Foster%20karate&f=true This looks like a win at the USKA Grand Nationals again in 1970, including pictures. http://books.google.com/books?id=f84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&dq=Mike+Foster+karate+%22Mike+Foster%22&hl=en&ei=ZftFTPnZNIK78gbG4v2WBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mike%20Foster%20karate%20%22Mike%20Foster%22&f=true Since this is unclear in the sources available, I'll make the USKA Championships date reference more general. Pkeets (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding redundant comments left at the article: The information is gathered from several sources, and if you insist on sourcing every phrase, then the article will be unreadable because of the sourcing. Also, if you insist that the language exactly match the sources, then you're requesting plagiarism. I think the article is sufficiently sourced and that your complaints are unfounded. Would it help if I spelled the subject's name as Maikeru Fashita? Pkeets (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking that you source claims such as winning trophies or which do not match what the sources say. Sources do not have to be used word for word, but they do have to say what the articel says, not what you want them to say. A source has to explicitly support the articel. Also you have still not established that he is the Founder of notable style (style not school or governing body) or to clear up (you have just added more sources that add to the mud) the question of his titles (which not everyone seems to think he had). This is interesting, not only does it seem to imply that (at this time) the USKA championship was not ‘the big time’. But also Mt Foster is not listed as a winner, and yet the following year was defending champion. In fact it says that Joe Lewis won the grand championship that year (1969) it also does not list Mr Foster as defeding champion, in fact mR Lewis beats someone else http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=USKA+Grand+National+Champion+1969&hl=en&ei=D-NGTObfAdOQjAfT4ez0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=USKA%20Grand%20National%20Champion%201969&f=false. This http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ps4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=uska+grand+national+champion+1970&source=bl&ots=p8Jdo9e1kM&sig=mvRtBn_GNXcRHp1r5wD-Apfivy4&hl=en&ei=KvhGTIKOLZKi0gTzrp3GBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=uska%20grand%20national%20champion%201970&f=false says that in the 1970 grand championship Lewis was defending and lost to Bill Wallace. So I think we may be talking about different titles. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe hes a keeper as per Pkeets hard work in finding this old refs ..and when using the name Mike Foster there are things to be found aswell. like this. Moxy (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I put this up for AfD, it seemed like a straightforward and clear cut decision. I did not expect this much in the way of comments and effort. I wish this much effort had gone into the original writing of the article, but that's another story. I still have some issues with some of the things that have been mentioned previously (thanks to Pkeet and Slatersteven for their work), but I believe there is now enough evidence to justify keeping the article. I hope the aforementioned issues can be cleared up. I will not withdraw the AfD nomination, since others still believe it should be deleted and have a right to their opinion. Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What issues? This is a good opportunity to improve the article. Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was bothered by the fact that some of the sources describing his titles weren't really independent, but the additional BB magazine articles have helped. The main thing bothering me now is the apparent uncertainty about exactly what he won and when he won it. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I can do anything about that except make the dates more general, and say such things as "sources report..." As mentioned above, the sources conflict and the Black Belt Magazine reports of competition results are clearly inaccurate (see Delgado). I have no access to tournament results from the sixties. Any suggestions? Pkeets (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would be to say the source in the context of the page like : According to Black belt magazine or Karate international etc.... I think the "Puffery" wikirule best describes what we should do in this case of conflicting sources (not that its is Puffery in the case... anyways just see the example here--->
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Puffery). Moxy (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's the specific list with the sources where I've recorded the info. I'll put this approximate list into the article, but I don't know that it will improve the style. BTW, I still have concerns about the appearance of such dense sourcing. When I see an article with every statement referenced, then I expect it's been challenged. Why, for example, should citations be provided for the statement that Foster established and headed Chito-ryu schools in the early sixties? Will this protect the article from further challenges later on?

because 'facts' have to be verifiable. That is how wiki works. Nor is every statement sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-Service Karate Champion in Japan (no date) - Tampa Bay

Southern All-Japan Champion in 1965 - Tampa Bay & Chito-ryu

Three-time United States Karate Association (USKA) Grand National Champion - Black Belt Magazine & Tampa Bay (BBM says three, TB says four times. Dates are uncertain (1966-1970?) and details in BBM are haphazard and confusing.)

Florida Karate State Champion from 1967 to 1975 - Black Belt Magazine & Tampa Bay (Dates are from Tampa Bay, but the championship is mentioned in BBM without further details.)

Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion in 1978 - Tampa Bay and Yoshukai Latvia (Championship listed by TB, date is from YL, but not described in the same words.)

U.S. International Karate Championship in 1970 - Black Belt Magazine Pkeets (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion described in Yoshukai Latvia?. Also Tampa Bay is his organisation so cannot be RS.

I will also still keep my vote as is, I am not sure what is gouing on with sources. But I do not bleive that what we are reading from Black Belt is independant of the source (the main Black Belt article seems to be about putting his side of the story in part). The magazine may be but not the person writing the articles. If another indepth source could be found I might change my mind on that. Alo how can he have been florida state champion in 1970 to 1973 when the Black belt magazine (1973) says he gave up the championship 3 years ago? In nfact that6 articel makes clear that he thinkls hes still the champion he has just not compeated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All-Service Karate Champion in Japan, Dubious source (his own organisation)

Southern All-Japan Champion in 1965, one good source (but is this a notable title?) Leave out the other (his own organisation)

Three-time United States Karate Association (USKA) Grand National Champion, A good source for this Rough, Tough Yoshukai Karate: Traditional Karate's Link to Full-contact Fighting. Leave out the other as it does not really say this, and in fact is a contested year (there was another victor in 1970)

U.S. International Karate Champion in 1970, sorry source only says first place in Black belt division it says Delgado won, for a second year

Florida Karate State Champion from 1967 to 1975, Dubious source (his own organisation). Other source lists him as a winner, but does not give any details other then to imply that he did not compete in three of these years.

Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion in 1978, Dubious source (his own organisation). I cannot find any reference to the Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion in then other source the closest seems to be the statement that he “participated also here as the 7th Dan in championships and could prove his superiority.”.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 July 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. JForget 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison Bollay

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dennison Bollay

Articles for deletion/Dennison Bollay (2nd nomination)

Dennison Bollay (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)

Delete. When I try to find sources on this individual, the 234 Google matches all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or passing references. How this ever survived the first nom for deletion is beyond me. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone tried to speedy it is an autobiography in 2005, but apparently we couldn't speedy unsourced autobiographies that didn't reliably assert their significance back then, and it was
sent to VfD. The result was keep, but I would tend to disagree; I can't find any non-wikipedia source that says he did any of this stuff. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, and I'm in agreement with the above. Third-party content is severely lacking and we have a victim of self-referencing. The debate for the prior VfD was essentially non-existent and would not stand as consensus by today's standards. BLP care is much better now than 5 years ago. ♪
(talk) 07:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - lack of
WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 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. JForget 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic Hills, Medina, Ohio

Rustic Hills, Medina, Ohio (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:N. This is an article about a subdivision in a town of 25,000. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Precedent is rather clear on a matter of small city areas (or moreso) subdivisions in that they must themselves prove notability and in no way inherent it by location alone. The article offers no such attempt. ♪
(talk) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:N, the only references are from the country club's website, and isn't even listed in the Geographic Names Information System. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:14, 19 July 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. JForget 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Meadow Estates, Medina, Ohio

Fox Meadow Estates, Medina, Ohio (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:N. This is an article about a subdivision in a town of 25,000. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:N, doesn't seem to have any significant third-party coverage, and isn't even listed in the Geographic Names Information System. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:11, 19 July 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. Have speedy deleted as no indications of importance provided. Davewild (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C3 United

C3 United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joshua Cuanan (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)

SPA. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I declined speedies on both of these articles myself, but I'm starting to rethink that now. I'll tag them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Already been CSD'ed once and clearly not notable or important. Mauler90 _talk 06:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly approve the speedy delete. They are clearly autobiographies. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the two articles (Joshua Cuanan) has been speedily deleted. Mauler90 _talk 09:10, 18 July 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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Barrett-Mills

Jesse Barrett-Mills (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)

not notable, at all -- no independent sources writing about this minor director of unreleased short documentaries. plus it's an orphan article. i suspect it's a promotional entry created by sock puppet. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I disagree about the lack of independent sources. There are links to articles on the wiki page, including legitimate award wins verified with newspaper articles and imdb. I've also found some of his work on Amazon.com, so he does have some films that are released and available on the market.

bchang84 16:21, 6 July 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor filmmaker. Certainly has not received coverage in reliable sources. Awards won are minor. Refs are weak and spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:38, 9 July 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, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can't fit this into any of the criteria at
WP:BIO without stretching considerably. Awards are not enough; they have to be well-recognized ones, such as an oscar. He has made films and they have been published, it seems, but they are far from prolific and I can't see much citation of them. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidacne awards are notable. No hits on google news (he's that noted a director no one cares).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 18 July 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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia (band)

Nadia (band) (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)

Looks like the article has been speedy'd a couple of times and notability remains marginal. Eeekster (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might barely squeak by
WP:MUSIC. I found precisely two instances of non-trivial coverage in Korean sources, which I added to the article. SM Entertainment is a notable label but I can't find a very strong confirmation that they're actually signed, just that their video was posted by SM's official Youtube account. cab (talk) 05:39, 28 June 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, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment 2 Yes, there are not enough strong sources that suggest they are signed under SM entertainment, but the fact that the duo has released a mini-album makes them notable in South Korea, if not internationally at least. Also, the mini-album was released in late 2009 and may have more plans in the future. The mini-album was released under the name of Purple Communications and SM Entertainment (Studio Works) and the music videos were released on the you-tube page of SM Entertainment. However, our confusion about the true nature of their contracts does not mean we should delete the article. We can help by improving it by removing unconfirmed information or mentioning it as just a speculation. I would have helped further but I am not too familiar with Korean language.
talk) 07:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Releasing an album doesn't make a group notable. Being covered in secondary sources makes them notable. The amount of such coverage here is rather small, which is why I am maintaining a neutral position here. Further, having "more plans in the future" doesn't make you notable; this is precisely what
WP:MUSIC specifically states "Has released two or more albums on a major label" as a criterion; I don't know whether one video and a mini-album passes that standard (I'm guessing not, but I don't usually participate in debates about bands and musicians). cab (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment 3 Well, since the article does not concide with any of the guidelines in
talk) 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete|Can't find any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete|Can't find any real notability.
talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
Maashatra11 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekargutho Monastery

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

~~No information was found anywhere about it, only wikipedia-related. Also in search engines. SHould be deleted and removed from template~~ TheNeon (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LIke the nominator, I could find absolutely no independent sourcing outside of wiki sites - not even confirmation that it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and remove from template. I, too, cannot confirm its existence, which also seems to indicate it is not notable even if it did exist. Perhaps it is a hoax too, but we may never know, given how ~~Bhutan is. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete not even a hint that it actually exists.--SPhilbrick T 12:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found these, but can't read italian [[11]]. I nhave also found this, but not sure its RS [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now keep, stop deleting. I have found it in Stan Armington "Bhutan" guide (it calls Sey Lhakhang 27°33′33.33″N 90°34′38.79″E / 27.5592583°N 90.5774417°E / 27.5592583; 90.5774417) and has many references as Sey Lhakhang can be found.

[13] Here is the description: Thanks, I think, it can be now kept TheNeon (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the hospital north of Jakar is the Sey (Gold) Lhakhang, properly known as Lhodrak Seykhar Dratshang. This is monastic school, established in 1963, with about 25 students. The central figure in the lhakhang is Marpa Lotsawa, a great teacher and translator of the Kagyu linage. The chapel is open to visitors.

Neutral. This certainly exists, then, but we should probably move the article to its best known name,
notable. The information I can find is mainly in tour guides, much of it seemingly copied from a book which mentions the site. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The source provided by TheNeon confirms that the monastery exists and is enough to
WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep and rename Google indicates this is a stop on several tours, is covered in at least one guide book, and is discussed in travel publications. It should be renamed the proper name of the institution, though (Lhodrak Seykhar Dratshang). Novaseminary (talk) 03:28, 27 July 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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tahdra Monastery

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

No information was found anywhere about it, only wikipedia-related. Also in search engines. SHould be deleted and removed from template TheNeon (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why haven't you notified the creator of the article? It's part of the process. The guy seems to have created many such articles. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have inspected all the stubs of monasteries in Bhutan. Many of them really exist (I can find them in Google, Guide book, on the map etc. But only two I could not find, so, I aply to delete these two only. TheNeon (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LIke the nominator, I could find absolutely no independent sourcing outside of wiki sites - not even confirmation that it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and remove from template. I can find nothing to confirm it exists, and thus it is non-notable even if it isn't a hoax. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be no sourcesSlatersteven (talk) 18:31, 18 July 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 Prince Talal bin Muhammad#Personal life. JForget 00:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Hussein bin Al Talal

Prince Hussein bin Al Talal (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)

WP:V--Can't verify. No sources via Gweb, Gbooks, Gnews that I can find save for wikimirrors, I also worked tracing using autotranslation tools and other strategies to try and find info from the Arabic WP, but I don't know Arabic and it is possible that my strategies may have not been adaquate.
Unsourced for 2+ years.
Unless sources can be found (which would be great), I rec redirect to Prince Talal bin Muhammad#Personal life, which contains all the information in the primary text of this information. I do not recommend deletion without the redirect, there are quite a few "family tree" links to this article. (I could have boldly made the move myself, but I thought I'd appeal for another set of eyes first instead.) j⚛e decker ^talk 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I've come accross a few of these myself, and if there is not enough
general notability guidelines, it should simply be redirected. I don't see how a stand-alone article adds anything that cannot be covered at Prince Talal bin Muhammad#Personal life. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to family or parent as appropriate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:56, 22 July 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. clear consensus that article fails to meet notability guidelines and even
WP:MUSIC... etc. etc. JForget 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Dogma (band)

Dogma (band) (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)

Band that appears to have made little impact in the media, One release only (dec 2009), no awards, significant reviews, books, biographical news articles or other things I can find from reliable sources. The only link given on this, and our sister wiki's, article is the band's website. Peripitus (Talk) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. I can't find anything that would make this
notable. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (but not speedy) per
WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not even sure there's a such genre as "progressive ethnic metal." Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Although the article is in a sorry state at the moment (poorly written and completely unreferenced), a google search of the band indicates some notability. For example, there's an entry of them on last.fm (a major internet-radio) http://www.last.fm/music/Dogma+(Armenian+Rock+Band) ; there's an entry on them on http://www.armenianpulse.com/artists/dogma/ ; this webpage indicates cooperation between Dogma and Jethro Tull (a world-famous band) http://www.j-tull.com/tourdates/index.html ; there's an entry about them on http://www.rocktheborders.com/directory.html . I am aware that none of these sources are PERFECT according to the strictest implementation of the notability guidelines, yet all of them combined should in my opinion be more than enough for a not-particularly-controversial article. DubZog (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last-fm is user generated content. www.armenianpulse.com appears to be a blog review site not sure if it's of any use. Being a guest or support act doesn't indicate notability. http://www.rocktheborders.com/ questionable reliability and not significant content. If those are the best that can be found then notability is not established. --neon white talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the following information is available on the www.armenianpulse.com website:

Contributing Writers: We have several independent or freelance writers working at Armenian Pulse, :including contributing writers from other sites.

Editor in Chief: Harout Kalandjian

Senior Writer: Ruth Power

Staff Writer: Elliott Hale Carrington

Contributing Writers: Paul Chaderjian, Liana Aghajanian, Vasken Aramian

as long as no-one has a justified reason to doubt this information, www.armenianpulse.com should be treated as a trustable review site, and not a "blog", as the content is provided by a variety of editors with centralized organization and control.

Also, if you carefully read Jethro Tull's website, Dogma was not a guest or support act, but rather some members of it performed together with Jethro Tull (i.e. were on stage at the same time).

Similarly, http://www.rocktheborders.com is a review site with multiple editors, so it's reliability should only be questioned if there's good cause to do so. Articles about Rock bands on wikipedia aren't in general "sensitive topics" with high potential for fraud so we shouldn't immediately assume that independent third-party sites might intentionally provide misinformation. Also, I strongly disagree with the "no significant content" claim with regards to Dogma's entry on rocktheborders. Hence, I believe, that if those are the best that can be found, notability IS established. DubZog (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability must be established not assumed. Same goes for notability. All articles on wikipedia are required to establish notability and use verifiable sources. www.rocktheborders.com only contains a single paragraph within what appears to be a directory, this isn't considered significant coverage and i see no evidence that the site is of any standing or peer reviewed, half to site isn't even complete and hasn't been updated since 2008. I'd suggest the site is likely defunct. --neon white talk 22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be serious. No wikipedia editor will have the time, or indeed a chance to follow the working-process of any newspaper or website that is used as a source of an article, so inevitably, common (and indeed the only existing) practise is to assume sources to be reliable if they LOOK to be reliable, provided there is no reason to believe in the contrary. If we chose to label an online publication with multiple centrally organized editors as "unreliable" we should also do that to the vast majority of printed journals and newspapers, and confine ourselves entirely to academic sources. However, this way wikipedia would lose a great deal (perhaps even the majority?) of its articles and stop being what it is today. Hence, using www.armenianpulse.com as the foundation, and the other listed sources as support, I believe we could do exactly what you asked for: establish the notability and verifiability of the topic. DubZog (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what is required here in order to establish notability. There is a big difference between established newspapers and peer reviewed journals and small independent review websites. --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that a media source can only be considered reliable if wikipedia editors have inside information regarding its working process unavailable to the general public? Because mind you, only scientific journals publishing primary original content are peer-reviewed as such... all other media articles are only reviewed internally within the organization, and the extent to which this is done is only fully known to people working in the organization. The only difference between established newspapers and journals, and small independent review websites is that more people know about the former than the latter. To say that as a result of that, the former are more reliable than the latter is prejudice. Please also see my comment on reliable sources later on in the discussion. DubZog (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as Its not notable enough to meet
WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment about notability According to Dogma's facebook page, "Recently a small article about Dogma was published in “Metalized” Magazine (http://www.metalized.dk/) , which is the biggest heavy metal magazine in Denmark and is sold throughout Scandinavia. It aroused readers' interest. After a listen to Dogma's music several musicians expressed their positive opinion and wished to see Dogma in Denmark." A photograph of the article can be seen here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.php?pid=2387117&id=552623526 and here http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.php?pid=2387116&id=552623526 . Now if only could any one of us get our hands on the real article itself... DubZog (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is trivial coverage, despite the non-triviality of the source. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish
WP:BAND notability.Farhikht (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

How could you possibly say NO third party sources in light of my comments about www.armenianpulse.com ? Let's go through this again... it's a site with multiple editors and an editor hierarchy system, so just as reliable as well... the vast majority of journals or newspapers. DubZog (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all irrelevant it has no reputation for music reporting. Compare it to such sources as Rolling Stone, NME, etc --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what's irrelevant is the comparison to Rolling Stone or NME. Preferring sources from the western cultural space to those from outside it is an act of introducing a systematic bias to Wikipedia, and even leaving this aside, whether a source is reliable or not does not depend on how it compares to some other sources that are available, but on the nature of the source itself ONLY. Only the very top end of the bands of the world get regularly reviewed by largely US and UK dominated "international" magazines, yet far far more are of significant national importance in other parts of the world and easily meet and surpass the general notability criteria. DubZog (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. On refs mentioned above, this from ArmenianPulse.com "ARTISTS - Submitting your upcoming events, artist profile, CD/Video releases or concerts to ArmenianPulse.com is an easy process. Best of all, it's FREE!". This from www.rocktheborders.com, "Directory section added with participating bands info". Cleary not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reliable sources According to the reliable sources guidline, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." A poor reputation means a POOR reputation, not a lack of it. The article on www.armenianpulse.com is in no way promotional in nature. Neither is the one in the danish magazine, that we sadly have limited access to... Also, none of the sources I've suggested for Dogma are self-published. The reliable sources guidline also states "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable." www.armenianpulse.com is a mainstream news source, hence it should be considered reliable unless there is a specific reason NOT to. DubZog (talk) 13:15, 21 July 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. JForget 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian politics (index)

Christian politics (index) (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)

Only contains a dozen or so articles and not all of them are clearly political. Anything meaningful is already or can be adequately covered in Christianity and politics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates
synthesis. Wikipedia editors cannot create an index grouping political parties and ideologies that are Christian along with issues of concern to Christians when there is no literature to support this grouping. TFD (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unsourced, not an article,
WP:SYNTH. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all the reasons above me.
Maashatra11 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - POV flogging. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dorsey

Thomas Dorsey (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)

Disambiguation page with only two articles. It makes more sense to have disambiguation links at the top of each article, which already exist. This page could redirect to Thomas A. Dorsey who is the most frequently used search for Thomas Dorsey, or that article could be relocated here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
MOS:DAB, dabs with 2 entries are fine, unless one is clear primary use of term, which I don't think is the case here (Tommy gets twice as many hits, but Thomas A. was presumably more commonly known as Thomas) Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid dab page with no primary topic. It could become a redirect to a primary topic with consensus at Talk:Thomas Dorsey, but that's independent of this deletion discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as needed for students looking for which one is which. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slightly inept nomination, since we have to do something with "Thomas Dorsey", either keep it as it is, or turn it into a redirect to one of the two. As JHunterJ says, this should be discussed further at the relevant talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 20 July 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. JForget 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Forever (soundtrack)

Hannah Montana Forever (soundtrack) (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)

Contested prod. Unable to find confirmation of the existence in
Hannah Montana (season 4). Even the article creator admits that this isn't a current recording.[14] AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, I can't believe it has taken this long, it is the usual
WP:VERIFY violations that we have seen about Hannah Montana before, but they are usually dealt with quickly. 117Avenue (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I don't think it meets any of the
criteria for speedy deletion, though I wish it did, and it does meet a few of the non-criteria listed there - namely, it may be a hoax, and it violates crystal. Please consign it to the burning heap accordingly. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow delete. It appears that Hannah Montana Forever is going to be the name of the series for its final season, but I cannot find any information for a soundtrack for that season even being in the making. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 July 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. JForget 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ryker

Andrew Ryker (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)

Rykerbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod. Subject is American wrestler. I believe the subject is a minor wrestler not notable enough for inclusion. Fails
WP:BIO as he has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the WWE section is totally over the top making it look like he was more than a paid local who did odd jobs here and there. MPJ -DK 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Under G11. This is a blatant promotional article and probably in violation of
WP:COI as well. Was previously deleted by prod in 2007 after his supposed WWE dark match. AinslieL (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - per Ainslie. !!
Punk !! 23:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete You bet this is blatant promotion! RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:18, 23 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice (US band)

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)

Queried speedy delete: the article says that this band has made 2 albums: see
Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles entry 5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I couldn't find any significant coverage other than a MusicMight bio ([15]), which may have also been included in Garry Sharpe's book (but no preview on Google Books), and reprints of press releases: [16], [17]. The British band of the same name seemed to be the subject of most things found, with Allmusic appearing to confuse the two - they have a bio of the British band but the US band's albums are listed with theirs.[18] Google Books suggests possible coverage in another book, but with no preview:[19]. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "British band of the same name" is Solstice (UK band). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find anything other than the information listed above. There is another notability criteria that the band seems to meet.
BAND#6 says, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Listed in the article there are two former band members and a guest that have articles. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 04:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Reluctant keep, based on
talk) 02:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Reluctant keep Have three (not two) albums released. this needs a lot of work but does pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put your money where your mouth is (idiom)

Look up put one's money where one's mouth is in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Put your money where your mouth is (idiom) (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: see
^Talk 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. From Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used.) This article discusses how the idiom is used, not how it should be used. Piano tech 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The context referred to isn't the dictionary item itself. The 'but' means: if an article about some event mentions that the phrase was used, it ought to be explained. So, do we have two or more articles that need to refer to such an explanation? —Tamfang (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My understanding to the "not a dictionary" policy would exclude articles explaining the meaning of words or phrases. Exceptions are made when there is some interesting history to report, although even then perhaps they should not be. In this case there is nothing more than an explanation of the meaning of this expression. Wiktionary is there for these. Wolfview (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low quality dicdef. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this placed in the "Places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it was a
good faith mistake by the nominator. Claritas § 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - not enough non-dictionary coverage for it to meet
WP:NOTDIC is an issue here. Claritas § 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment First edit by a new contributor, and welcome to AfD. We have had cases where things like this have survived, such as with
Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch, but usually not without sourcing. The Wiktionary entry isn't that great either (they say that this is a verb, making it the longest verb I've ever seen). I can't see a keep, but I enjoyed the G version ("act on it rather than just talk about it") and the PG version ("mean what they propose to do rather than just bullshit about it"). Don't worry about it if it gets deleted, that's happened to all of us. Mandsford 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. In my opinion, this is a clear case of
WP:NOTDIC. Encyclopaedias are not the place to discuss idiom unless it is within the context of a notable event. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Edison (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of scope. I'm a little troubled, though, that "non-dictionary coverage" might convince some people to keep an article on this topic. Powers ^T 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - unlike some other phrases, I am not assured that a full article could be created. I have found some decent sources, see here, but even those may not be enough. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems right for when a famous politician utters it in a debate. Almost ready for an article. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Morrison McGill

Ross Morrison McGill (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 the
educator biographical notability guideline. Only coverage is a mention in a list of English educator awards in 2004 here, which does not strike me as a sufficiently prestigious award to warrant inclusion. Linkedin profile is here, and there is also a mention in a school newsletter here. No Google News results (see archive search here). -- Lear's Fool 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The award won was not national - I checked the site listed for award winners for the years 2003-2005 (year claimed won ±1) to no avail. Checked nominator's link and found it headlined with "Award winners from London The full list of the regional teaching award winners from London." (emphasis mine) vulture19 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 03:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A regional award might tip the balance in a borderline case, but this has zero hits on GNews. Nor does the apparent conflict of interest impress me much. See
WP:NOTMYSPACE. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

IP address inserted comments into nominator's rationale. As you're not supposed to edit other users' comments in discussions, I've separated them here:
{{quote|text=Journalist article is here.[appendage to nom's sentence] ... and ^[1] Teachers TV feature. Teachers TV feature 2. Google Docs National College of School Leadership reference (item 3) - transforming learning spaces. However, Google results for work as a teacher (see archive search here ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.129.161 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my response ... See
WP:PROUD. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Firstly, there's a strong reek of
WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:55, 18 July 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 Not-delete. Discussion on merging, moving, etc. can be continued on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment

3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment (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)

The article is too specific and the information in this article could be rightly found elsewhere. The article was previously tagged with a PROD but the author removed it, and expanded the article based on the concerns I raised. I'm listing it here because of the overall concern of a small, potentially
non-notable article and I would like consensus on the potential deletion. elektrik SHOOS
23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Big text[reply]

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

-- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to 319th Field Artillery Regiment. Usual practice is to merge all small battalion articles into a regimental article. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and I have added a citation to demonstrate this. Whether the material is best covered at this level is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There already is some consensus about the notability of military units.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide used to expand on it more, but you can see some of the history and discussion there and at the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: there is no
319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment or 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division to upmerge to, which is what I'd prefer. It seems to be fairly typical amongst artillery battalions, and considering the United States Army, a battalion isn't large enough to confer notability without some sort of other significance. That, and the realative lack of sources trouble me: GlobalSecurity doesn't really impress me, and the other ref says that the page cited is unavailable and isn't even formatted as a proper citation. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The other source - 173rd Airborne Brigade: Sky Soldiers works fine for me and recounts the illustrious history of this battery, including various unit citations, records and other distinctions. Please try again as this source discusses the unit in some detail and indicates that it is special. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not quoting these as policy,
WikiProject Military History's style guildelines includes both an essay on military notability and suggested article structures for army unit articles. Hope this will help with consideration. elektrik SHOOS 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
yak 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to
yak 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to
319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment and expand. Battalion is not sufficiently notable standing on its own. GregJackP Boomer! 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note existence of
4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment which might be merged in. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Its been nominated for deletion also. [20] Dream Focus 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also expanded this with Lineage and Honors certificate. Sadads (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the references in the article now. [21] There is a lot of information out there about this. Not sure if any of the 33 Google news results or 2 Google Book search results are notable or not, not bothering to read through all of that right now, and don't see a need, since other information has convinced me. Shouldn't all divisions that have been around that long, and have participated in notable wars, be notable? Listing notable people who once served as its commanding officer might be a good addition to the article. Dream Focus 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @DreamFocus - if the 3/319AFAR were a division (about 12-17K soldiers), you would be correct, but it is a battalion (500-800 men). The standard that WikiProject MilHist uses is that articles will normally be on regiment (3K men +/-) with only very exceptional smaller units meriting an article. By combining the 3/319AFAR and the 4/319AFAR into an article on the 319AFAR, the unit gets its article, abet at a higher level. As far as unit histories go, the 3/319AFAR, while good, is just not exceptional enough for a separate article. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This battalion is pretty exceptional, see the decorations that I added from their lineage. Sadads (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - as per excellent logic of GregJackP. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge
319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment INo reason for one battalion to have its own page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - No doubt in my mind that this historic battalion is notable and that sources exist that would allow expansion of this article. A regimental article would also be good and this becomes a start for that as well. Comments like this immediately above: No reason for one battalion to have its own page are not useful. If the subject of the article is not notable, then no article, otherwise article. No reason is not a reason. I believe this one is notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I made a page for the parent unit 319th Field Artillery Regiment using the public domain Lineage and Honors by the United States Army Center of Military History, working on getting some more sources and adding the decorations. Sadads (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations done, bibliography on talk page, do what you will, Sadads (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also moved the page per the unit's lineage designation (which is the official name, though some may call it airborne). Sadads (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those of you suggesting move, I don't think that is a good idea based on how much information we can attain from the Lineage alone, which is public domain because it is produced by the United States Army Center of Military History. I already added ACMH tag and am adding ACMH text. Their is definitely enough stuff for a distinct page, Sadads (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any more is needed to prove sufficient keep value, I copied the CMH bibliography up at
Talk:319th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), for future research and if anyone else wants to go diving for more to fill out the narrative. Sadads (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This is a difficult case to judge because there really is no hard and fast rule about what sized unit is notable and what is not. For instance, some company-level (squadron, etc.) units have articles and are notable enough to do so, as are some battalions, but then there are many battalions that are not notable enough to warrant an article. To an extent this comes down largely to the sourcing that is available. In smaller armies (for instance Australia, NZ, maybe even Canada) the sources tend to focus on lower-level units and whole books have been written on battalions and sometimes even company-level equivalents, whereas in larger armies (e.g the British, US, Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, etc.) the sources would probably focus a bit higher up (brigade, regiment, maybe even division or corps etc.) because of the size of their armies and breadth of their involvement in the various conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I originally closed it as delete, but since
talk) 02:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Seven Network slogans

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans

Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans (4th nomination)

List of Seven Network slogans (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is
original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

A lot of hard work has gone into this list of slogans. Please do not delete this article. Eddie Blake 14:17PM (AEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure these are as notable as the American network slogans, but sources will be even harder to find because Australian reliable sources (especially older ones) do not have as much of a web presence as American sources. DHowell (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons are
popular culture, verifiable and factual. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia.AWHS (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's about time a nomination was made for this. In the years this article has been up, not one source has been presented into the article itself and it is just an unsourced list that has expanded to both unsourced local slogans (which often were just pushed out by a station in twenty seconds by a cheap production music company to maintain a veneer of "network solidarity" and only aired in times where
chatter) 07:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
talk) 02:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Nine Network slogans

List of Nine Network slogans (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is
original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

A lot of hard work has gone into this list of slogans. Please do not delete this article. Eddie Blake 14:20PM (AEST)
Comment - Perhaps you can start a page elsewhere on the web for this info (wikia.com?). It just doesn't appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTDIR.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Please, in time for YOG 2010, in which 9 is the principal broadcaster, don't delete this, and also for the 55th anniversary of Aussie TV next year. JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 6:43 P.M., 13 July 2010 (PST)
Comment See:
WP:MERCY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, in time for YOG 2010, in which the Nine Network and GO!!! are the principal broadcasters, don't delete this, and also for the 55th anniversary of Aussie TV next year. I did everything to contribute to this page. JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 6:45 P.M., 13 July 2010 (PST) Striking as user has already voted above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The same comment applies to the
WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability is verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources. I think that this is a keep and should be encouraged. AWHS (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The main problem with this article is, that it is just a simple list of slogens and there's no other meaningful content. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture states that "Popular culture is often viewed as being trivial"... AWHS (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — AWHS (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure these are as notable as the American network slogans, but sources will be even harder to find because Australian reliable sources (especially older ones) do not have as much of a web presence as American sources. DHowell (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's about time a nomination was made for this. In the years this article has been up, not one source has been presented into the article itself and it is just an unsourced list that has expanded to both unsourced local slogans (which often were just pushed out by a station in twenty seconds by a cheap production music company to maintain a veneer of "network solidarity" and only aired in times where
chatter) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As I said over at the Network Ten slogans AfD, deleting this will seem like a cliched example of systemic bias. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC slogans

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of NBC slogans

Articles for deletion/List of NBC slogans (2nd nomination)

List of NBC slogans (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is
original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I vote for retention. JMRAMOS0109, 4:54 PM (PST)

Keep - "Not a single section is referenced" is dubious, as there was already at least one reference to Variety magazine. Variety as well as Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. I'd look for more sources but unfortunately I don't have time right now. DHowell (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The same comment applies to the 9 other slogans listed for
WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability for this type of material can be verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources.AWHS (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's about time a nomination was made for this. In the years this article has been up, not one source has been presented into the article itself and it is just an unsourced list that has expanded to both unsourced local slogans (which often were just pushed out by a station in twenty seconds by a cheap production music company to maintain a veneer of "network solidarity" and only aired in times where
chatter) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete based on current content such as that found in List of NBC slogans#Local Versions (1979). I might change my mind if the article changes between now and the close of the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS slogans

List of CBS slogans (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is
original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I consider retention. Keep this article. JMRAMOS0109 5:02 PM (PST)

Keep. The same comment applies to the 9 other slogans listed for
WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability for this type of material can be verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources.AWHS (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's about time a nomination was made for this. In the years this article has been up, not one source has been presented into the article itself and it is just an unsourced list that has expanded to both unsourced local slogans (which often were just pushed out by a station in twenty seconds by a cheap production music company to maintain a veneer of "network solidarity" and only aired in times where
chatter) 07:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete agree with nom, Ambrust, and Nate - purely unsourced trivia that is not notable, mostly unverifable, and purely
talk ~ contribs) 05:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABC slogans

List of ABC slogans (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)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is
original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I want this article retained. JMRAMOS0109 5:05 PM (PST)

Keep - Like the NBC slogans, I'm pretty sure that Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. I'd look for more sources but unfortunately I don't have time right now. Also there were two web references, whether you believe they are reliable or not it is dubious to claim that "not a single section is referenced". DHowell (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's about time a nomination was made for this. In the years this article has been up, not one source has been presented into the article itself and it is just an unsourced list that has expanded to both unsourced local slogans (which often were just pushed out by a station in twenty seconds by a cheap production music company to maintain a veneer of "network solidarity" and only aired in times where
chatter) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete agree with nom, Ambrust, and Nate - purely unsourced trivia that is not notable, mostly unverifable, and purely
talk ~ contribs) 05:03, 25 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boutiq

Boutiq (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)

Animation/film production company. Unable to find sources to indicate notability per
WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Various alternate searches fail to show notability. Fails
WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Almost no sources exist. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real sources or achievements to make it notable. TwoRiversWC (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too can't find anything worth putting on the table. Presumably the creator can't, either. The reference given appears to be a database entry, and the external links are no help. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with preceding comments. Shearonink (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fall (film)

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)

Chevytruck1500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A television movie "depicting fictional air crashes of Trans Regional Airlines". Article has no sources and cannot find any. Seems to fail
WP:NFILMS. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable film. VQuakr (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See no reason to keep this as no sources are used. Bossanueva (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While IMDB lists several films by this name,[23] this article is not one of them. Current content does not allow any sourcing or verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my delete. I'll attempt improvements to the article, as I finally found the right film. Using "Trans Regional Airlines" as a search term,[24] I found a cached article from 2005[25] that lead me to the correct title on IMDB.[26] I'll report back after some work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report: Doing some expansion and sourcing as I have found that the film had international release on television and video under a number of non-English different names. More research to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and
Portugese, Swedish, Spanish and any of the other languages in which this film had television and video release under many different names. With repects to the nominator and his good-faith sending of an unsourced 2-sentence stub to AFD,[27] I have done some digging and have been able to flesh the article out, turning the 2 sentences by a 15x expansion into a moderate Start Class film article.[28] I have now come to believe that with additional work it can be better yet. It sure isn't the same article that was first nominated or commented upon before its expansion. Perhaps we might let this one stick around now and grow further. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Film appears to be notable and widely released internationally. TwoRiversWC (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — TwoRiversWC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per improvements and sourcing of MQS. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 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 Lamon Records. JForget 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevating Entertainment

Elevating Entertainment (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)

Lrcee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "Contested" prod. Subject is film production company that appears non-notable. References discuss films the company has made so not entirely on topic. No sources for the company itself. Few Google hits. Massive COI and SPA problem. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Disagree with the assertion that the company is non-notable.
- Principals of the company are well known industry professionals in Nashville (country, acoustic, and christian music) with over 30 years in the entertainment industry and have expanded into family film production over the past four years. Linking to them does not make this a COI. Have added new articles that also discuss the company.
- Dove Foundation is by far one of the industry's leading reviewer of films for family audiences and they have recommended two movies produced by the company with their Family Approved Seal. (http://www.dove.org)
- International distributor of company's films "Moving Pictures Film and Television" is a well known foreign film distributor exhibiting at Cannes Marche de Film, American Film Market (AFM), Toronto Film Festival, etc is run by former Sony and Loinsgate executes. (http://movingpicturesfilmandtv.com)
- Company is included in the Screen Actors Guide (SAG) indie index reference as a production company in Tennessee. (http://www.sagindie.org/directory/tennessee-101-producer.html)
- Company has worked with leading actors in the industry, including Rob Schnieder (IMDb STARmeter 250), John de Lancie (IMDb 5000), Catherine Hicks (IMDb 2500), Rance Howard (IMDb 5000), Margaret O'Brien (IMDb 3000), Lee Meriwether (IMDb 4000), Bill Cobbs (IMDb 4000), and many others featured in the company's productions. Company has new projects in pre-production. All actor's credits clearly recognized by Internet Movie Database for the films produced. IMDb STARMeter info is available here: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

Sorry, misread the instructions when first deleted the warning header... thought it said the tag could be removed with a note. I am the article's original creator. Lrcee (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Lrcee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Lamon Records, of which this appears to be a subsidiary. Elevating Entertainment is not notable in itself. Google News search finds plenty of hits for the phrase "elevating entertainment," but none for the company. Google hits are either trivial or lead to the Lamon Records website. [29] --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Company appears notable on its own, especially in the emerging genre of faith-friendly films. See recent article July 19, 2010 USA Today TwoRiversWC (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) (Note: User:TwoRiversWC has made few or no edits outside of this subject, and has now been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Lrcee.)[reply]

Which doesn't appear to discuss the subject at all? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the USA Today article is about Christian films, but there is no mention of this company that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions a lot of things, but none relevant here. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per MelanieN. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge Lacks independent notability per
WP:GNG Chzz ► 18:33, 21 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Bagci

Baris Bagci (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)

Sourced only to imdb. Otherwise appears non signficiant. Melanesian obsession (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails
WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as short film history and lack of coverage make this article
WP:TOOSOON. HOWEVER, if somone finds Turkish RS that I could not, I can reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as actor is notable and has been in an award-winning movie, and his filmography has links to 2 other films on wikipedia. And there are 2 other sources used, not just IMDB. A quick google of Bagci reassures his significance. Also the nominator has now been blocked from wikipedia. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a bit worse, as the nominator has been banned as an sockpuppet of banned User:Torkmann [30] And even though I am willing to accept the listings on the Turkish language sites as to his other projects, Wikipedia needs something more than just listings. What we need are a few articles that deal directly with the man as an actor, even if non-English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete … does not even come close to meeting
WP:ENTERTAINER. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{17:57, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Biazzi

Mauricio Biazzi (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)

Notability, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or the GNG. There's some level of WP:V present, 4 hits in Google news reflect passing mentions in lists of musicians within articles, but none are "signficant" coverage, no secondary independent coverage I could find in Books or Web either. Unsourced for over two years. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable musician. No significant coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:18, 18 July 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 Bobby Orlando. JForget 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby O & His Banana Republic

Bobby O & His Banana Republic (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)

Subject is an album by
Bobby O that has questionable notability. The only source is tracklist information. Cannot find evidence that subject is notable. SPA. Recommend redirect to artist. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a speedy redirect to Bobby Orlando, but you don't need to start an AfD to do that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Trilogy

CSI: Trilogy (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)

First off, why does it use [[Template:Infobox Television]]? as if it was it's own series when it is just a compilation of episodes from the three main television series? No references or sources exist on the article and is better off being merged with the CSI franchise article. CrackedLeo (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that the title can be misleading with the CSI (franchise) article. CrackedLeo (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm hesitant with my deletion opinion because CSI typically has a lot of critical response. My problem with this is that I find it difficult that critics will be reviewing this as a single entity (as I'm finding reviews--most of which are not that professional, but some are--for individual episodes and not for the entire 2 1/2 broadcast). The title is also a bit misleading since that doesn't pop up in reliable sources either. I'm thinking that it's probably going to be better in the long run (if the sources can be found) to have 3 individual articles that indicate a connection to each other in prose. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have a list of CSI episodes? CrackedLeo (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have lists of CSI episodes, but they're separate(a list for each show). This page covers a multi-part series that had an one episode in all three(at least, that's the impression I get from the page). I think we can keep it, but it definitely needs to be cleaned up. Loiathal (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better split into three separate pages, because I'm not finding a lot of sources that discuss this as a single entity. This is more of a single editor identifying storylines that crossover and making a single page out of it. The reviews are going to individual episodes, so that's probably how it should be kept. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read about
Fictional crossover. And this is officially such a fictional crossover of three shows, not an idea of some user.--Avala (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I don't see any specific issues raised on the content, as for the problems, if you notice an inappropriate template you make an edit not AfD request, if you notice a confusing title you rename the article and you don't make an AfD request.--Avala (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: A major crossover between multiple shows is rather deserving of it's own article... I believe this precedent has already been set, as I have seen several articles for similar crossover events... (not using
t) (c) 01:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Notable crossover episode, especially someone from Las Vegas (though not from the original cast) crosses over to New York for the first time. Just needs some work and cleanup. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd be very surprised if two non trivial independant sources can't be found for these three eps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:10, 22 July 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.
talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

No Limit Kids

No Limit Kids (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)

Lrcee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is a film of questionable notability. The article itself is spammy and promotional. The reviews and sources come from questionable locations and could not find any reliable sources. Blatant SPA and COI issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Disagree with the assertion that the film is non-notable.
- Principals of the company behind the film are well known industry professionals in Nashville (country, acoustic, and christian music) with over 30 years in the entertainment industry and have expanded into family film production over the past four years. Linking to them does not make this a COI in our option.
- Dove Foundation is arguably the industry's leading reviewer of films for family audiences and used by many Hollywood studios (Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, etc) as a means to rate and recommend films with the the Dove Family Approved Seal. They have recommended this film with a five star rating for family audiences. (http://www.dove.org)
- International distributor of this film "Moving Pictures Film and Television" is a well known foreign film distributor run by former Sony and Loinsgate executes. (http://movingpicturesfilmandtv.com)
- Gideon Film Festival is a leading family film festival and media arts conference held in NC with screenings and workshops by leading directors and producers in the genre. (http://gideonfilmfestival.com)
- KIDS FIRST! Film Festival is a ten year old, year-long event in 150 cities sponsored by the Coalition for Quality Children's Media Entertainment. Absolutely disagree that their review is "spammy", "questionable" and "not reliable" as their reviews and festival screenings are widely-recognized in the industry as a source for hi-quality family films.
- Marketing of the film is by Propeller Consulting, a leader in children's consumer products with over $1 billion in sales to their credit. (http://flypropeller.com)
- Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriwether are noteable and award winning actors. (Star meter IMDb usually 4000 or less.) Their credits are clearly recognized by Internet Movie Database as performers in this film.

Sorry, misread the instructions when first deleted the warning header... thought it said the tag could be removed with a note. Still relatively new to Wiki. I am the article's original creator. Lrcee (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Lrcee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (Changing to Delete, see below) The film exists, it stars a couple of notable actors, and it has been invited to some minor film festivals. However, none of that is enough to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability of films, found at
WP:NF.) See the companion AfD nomination for the film studio that produced it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevating Entertainment, above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Agree, there are many films less notable that are approved at AfD all the time. Even the originator of this deletion article initially commented (and later altered his statement) that this was "borderline." This film has just started its marketing. Don't be too quick to throw it out. The film has a sub-title, as it may be the first in a series. A search of the full title, lands a number of notable sources and outlets, reviews, etc of the movie, including TV Guide. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Perhaps the title of the Wiki Page should actually be No Limit Kids: Much Ado About Middle School Lrcee (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lrcee, I'm crossing out the word "keep" from your comment above, because you already said "keep" in an earlier comment. You are welcome to comment here as much as you want, but you only get one "vote". --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional comment: I didn't know whether it would be appropriate to add an
Elevating Entertainment. Make of this what you will. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. I am getting a bad vibe from
WP:COI. At this time, I would say that the film does NOT meet notability guidelines but, as others have said, it is a borderline case. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Recognizable named actors in the film. Source of reviews listed appear to be respected family content critics. Agree with basis consensus above that many other films less notable are included. ~~TwoRiversWC (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Note: User:TwoRiversWC has made few or no edits outside this topic and has now been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Lrcee.[reply]

Weak Delete on the grounds of ~~not-yet-released (~~
~~WP:CRYSTAL), and~~ over-promotional tone, and per MelanieN above (including the COI bit). (I know it's been made, but there's no guarantee of release.) The presence of other "less notable" films is not a reason for this one. Tag them if you think they're not notable, don't use them as excuses for other things. I'd never heard of the two blue-linked actors, but hey, they've probably never heard of me. Peridon (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Film is released.
WP:V Quick search of outlets including Amazon, Deeper Shopping, many others all show DVD available and in-stock. More on Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriwether -- TwoRiversWC (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
So the release date in the box (October 2010 is incorrect? Peridon (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the infobox "release date" is wrong. The movie is available now on DVD through various outlets, soundtrack will be available in August as an mp3/download at Amazon.com. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Release date has been corrected in the Box. Thanks. Lrcee (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm changing my opinion from "Weak delete" to "Delete" based on the obvious conflict-of-interest gameplaying by Lrcee - who wrote the article and has provided the only "keep" !votes here, both directly and through a sockpuppet. His/her contribution profile makes it clear that he/she is only here to promote the interests of businessperson Dave Moody, and I hate to see Wikipedia used that way. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 25 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Karvers

Arkham Karvers (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)

Subject appears to be non-notable band. Has played supporting roles for other bands. There are a number of references though these are minimal, non-notable, local etc. and don't believe coverage is enough. Possibly borderline but favour deletion. Also created by SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only very minor coverage in independent sources. Narrowly misses speedy deletion under CSD:A7 in my view.
talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and come back later, boys, when you've made it big(ger). Failure under
WP:ENT. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:09, 18 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eren E

Eren E (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)

"Contested" prod. Subject appears to be a non-notable music producer who produced many of Imran Khan's work. Most links are social networking sites/own websites. There's an interview on desi-box.com that refers to "First ever interview". [31] The interview itself states "Not many people will have heard about the artist that we’re going to be interviewing today but mark my words this is the beginning of something very big for this man." This doesn't strike me as someone notable enough for inclusion. Few Google hits. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:COI, though this has now been addressed. Empty Buffer (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for general non-compliance with
WP:CREATIVE. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:11, 18 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Abdul Razaq

Shahid Abdul Razaq (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 has survived PROD and Speedy Deletion attempts but I think it needs to be looked at again. There is no clear statement of notability although there are claims that could confer notability if they were made more specific and backed up by references. Currently, the only reference does not look like a
reliable source
and does not seem to have any information about Razaq anyway. This means that we also have a problem with verifiability.
I have tried Googling for his name (although only in English), including the different spellings and leaving out the first name, and not found anything relevant (although there are other people with the same name). The only Afghan I can find of that name is a Taliban field commander called Abdul Razaq[32] who I assume to be a different person. It may be a sad irony that a Taliban Commander is more notable than a peace activist but we can't have articles on non-notable people even if they are praiseworthy. DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Can find no information on this person. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability (so clearly he was no
WP:NOT prohibits. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow (2010 film)

Sparrow (2010 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)

Article for unreleased movie does not meet notability guidelines in
WP:FUTFILM | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment unfair. Please take a look at the page for Natalie Portman, who has four films in post-production, all of which are listed on wikipedia. Keith1234 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Keith1234, please read
WP:WAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Weak keep, or Incubate without prejudice toward return to mainspace. Film is due for release in 3 months, and production is getting coverage.[33][34][35][36][37][38] Either we can let this new article grow and improve through regular editing, or we can wait for it to get released and get more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, thank you for your comment. I would also like to add, that searching Sparrow (2010 film) is unlikely to conjure any or much response, as the film is not titled like this. The only reason this article is titled so is to obviously distinguish it from not only the article about the bird, but also from other movies... Keith1234 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Find sources" can occasionally be misleading, but as you see above, I do try to dig a little deeper. If you can provide links to additional articles about the film, such would be most helpful in improving the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ambivalent but straying towards delete. I get very uneasy about articles concerning unreleased films.
WP:CRYSTAL suggests, in my mind, that even with concrete, reliable sources, discussion should be held pending public release. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/Hold Hold because the film is getting some coverage so it exist, though it is yet to be released. Delete because there's nothing here to make it notable? TwoRiversWC (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not fulfill
WP:NF. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Film is getting considerable coverage and article has now been improved with more references. Keith1234 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 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 Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. JForget 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland

Articles for deletion/Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland (2nd nomination)

Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland (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)

Speedy renomination due to lack of sufficient participation in previous debate to determine consensus. Novel which does not meet
WP:GNG - it's a book in a series with no notability inherited from that series. Carolyn Keene is not an author but a pseudonym used by 10 or more authors, and the author of this novel is not considered notable enough to have an article for him/herself. Therefore, criterion 5 does not apply, and I don't see how it can meet any of the other criteria - there's very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 11:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a Redirect to Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, as a non-notable member of a very large series. All of the 56 original or "classic" stories in this series have their own WP articles, but the 100+ later ones from a different publisher are considered to be a separate and much less notable series, and most of them do not have articles. This is the final book in that second series. In the absence of outside coverage, it is non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Redirect as per
WP:N is fulfilled. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:24, 18 July 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. enough consensus that he fails notability guidelines JForget 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Weingarten

Rob Weingarten (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)

Cannot find any sources to establish notability Hallucegenia (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. News search turns up one
WP:RS reference, from the Washington Post, and otherwise just a few minor references from the 1990s [39]. The article is completely unsourced, but even if everything in it is taken at face value, it does not add up to notability by WP standards. He was the announcer for minor league sports teams; he was a local program director and hosted or co-hosted local radio programs; that's about it. I'm sure he has or had devoted fans but that's not enough to qualify for a page in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per MelanieN. I just do not see any notability here. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and trim. He is the sole subject of this profile piece int he St. Petersburg Times. His appointments and moves to various radio stations have been noted in bizjournals, [40], and Billboard, [41]. Not a huge amount of coverage, but enough to skim over the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 05:33, 20 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crew clothing

Crew clothing (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)

Appears to be a non-notable clothing brand. Article hardly has any citations. However, there is a list of store locations in the article body. Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 04:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nuujinn (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - article is spammy marketing in present form with no explanations as to why the brand is notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Posner

Tracy Posner (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:BIO. Contested prod. Notability is not inherited, and this appears to be little more than an advertisement for her charity. Ray^Talk 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Agree it has the feeling of an ad rather than article. Needs major improvements to keep, including titling the refs, which now read 1, 2, 3...with no explanation of what you are clicking on or where it might take you. Other problems as well, including a large section on her husband. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I disagree with you. The entry succeeds from where I originally found it. However, today I have reedited it down to focus on essential parts. Ms. Posner-Ward's communal dog rescue is the only one of its kind in the world, and it specializes in large breeds, including many breeds rarely seen or found. It was in ad form when I first found it earlier this week. It has been revised and revamped. I edited out the comments by Burt Ward, but considering he and his wife work together, they were relevant. There exists no other animal shelter and rescue for large dogs elsewhere in the world. Perhaps a photo illustrating the location would prove the point. Ms. Posner is, despite her father and husband, a public figure in her own right as she founded thisunique nonprofit. Cocoruff (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Cocoruff[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I think she passes the bar given the People article and the lawsuit, see also [42][43] [44] Nuujinn (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - One is left wishing the article was about Gentle Giants and not about the co-founder. In my opinion, she clears the bar on her status as co-founder of that. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The org may be notable, but she isn't. Lionel (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails
WP:N guidelines). That a related org and her husbandf are notable or possibly notable does not make her notable. Novaseminary (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Recent citations have been added to the article which demonstrates the subject passes
reliable sources are available from Google News Archive. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think so. The GNG requires extensive coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of said subject. Acting as a proxy for a more notable person in a lawsuit, or being mentioned in the context of a more notable person or organization, does not suffice. She gets mentioned for being the wife of a famous actor. She gets mentioned for being the child of a rich man. She gets mentioned for being the child of a rich man suing in a legal dispute related to the death of said rich man. These merit, at best, a paragraph in the bio of her husband and father, respectively. These are, almost the classic examples of
wp:inherited. Ray^Talk 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Think again. WP:GNG states "that sources address the subject directly in detail so no original research is needed to extract the content". She has received that and then some in all the citations provided. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)R[reply]

What content? We've got lots of details on her pet adoption service, and a play-by-play of a particular lawsuit she was involved in concerning her inheritance. This is not encyclopedic coverage of a person's life. It's regurgitation of slow news day fodder. Ray^Talk 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my belief has always been that a person who is in the news for many years, for many different reasons, is notable, period. I can only think of one truly odd case in which the
outcome of an AfD has been different, but your results may differ. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 27 July 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.

^ http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/haringey/schools/alexandra-park/web/newsletters/newsletter_no_9_06to07.pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_18&oldid=1142641339"

[1] ttp://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/haringey/schools/alexandra-park/web/newsletters/newsletter_no_9_06to07.pdf

[1]