Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 11

< 10 May	12 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.

talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Blocks

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

Looks to be self-promotion. No proof of notability. Octane (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not self promotion. For reference, please see: www.grngecko.com/torment.html fidnru (talk) 7:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— fidnru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not self-promotion. An article meant to juxtapose knowns against speculation. It is of note as the puzzle has had 32000 submissions, all wrong. Many have tried, none have succeeded over the course of 3 years. Ekansadakaj (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)— Ekansadakaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No 3rd Party Reliable sources found. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable and independent sources that demonstrate the notability of this puzzle. Given its title, Google searching is difficult. If someone can find decent sources, I could change my mind. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search "grngecko torment" on google to see the sheer number of communities the have tried their hand at this puzzle. Most threads go to page 50 and beyond, and there are plenty of different websites that do so.Ekansadakaj (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: User:Ekansadakaj is the author of the page and is a SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did that and I found a lot of blogs and message boards. Perhaps you can provide links to

reliable sources about this puzzle. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment My first thought was that this was a band made up of Wikipedia administrators. Ekans does raise a good point-- there are things that "go viral" on the internet world without being noticed by the mainstream press until much later, if at all, but it's almost impossible to quantify. I do have some problems with the text in this case, especially the spammy stuff and the part about "it was discovered in 2007". Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, if that bothers you. It was published in 2007. I have to agree that "discovered" is the wrong word to use. Feel free to edit at your disposal with little things like this.Ekansadakaj (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see if there's anything left to edit. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopeless article, full of WP:spam promotion and how-to instructions and minute, minute detail about how to play. Lots of it is written in "we" and "you" voices. The article even tries to justify its own existence by citing "arguably, one of the biggest reasons this article should exist." No reliable sources given or found. No confirmation of anything except blog evidence that the thing exists and some people are trying to solve it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You manage to find everything wrong with the article while ignoring anything useful the article provides. Most, if not all information can be rewritten an in objective voice. "What we Know" is "What is Known". If you need confirmation it exists, click the link. "Some" people is a rather large quantity. I see many opinions in your argument. Ekansadakaj (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is not how the article is written. The issue is that it doesn't seem to satisfy

WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete There appears to be a
notability have been found. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Rose

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

Disputed prod but still don't think the article passes

WP:ENT. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:ENT. The "findsources" above and her common name give an uncountable number of false positives. She may achieve notability in the future, but no... just not yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete She might become notable later - and good luck to her - but at this point she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN and MichaelQSchmidt. Risker (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the Lions Leave Their Den

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

WP:CRYSTAL, only source is first-party. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above.--John Chestpack (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiable information from reliable third party sources is important. This article at the current stage doesn't seem to have that. Also, issues with
WP:CRYSTAL.--IslandAtSea (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the reason above. --
Nascar 1996 01:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
reliable sources at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roadsend PHP

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

I can't find

talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a very interesting and useful product but I see no evidence of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Love (album)

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

Fails

WP:NALBUMS. Morenooso (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No

verify its release. --Morenooso (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, assuming Reckless Love is deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 May 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 per g12 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business architects association

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

CSD tags repeatedly removed by IP. Spam. GregJackP (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and spam. So tagged. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:47, 12 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary classical double bass players

)

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

This list seems redundant. We already have a category "Classical double-bassists", which is much easier to maintain individually than this huge, unreferenced list. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are two complementary methods of organization, and they are both useful. ItThere is no policy calling for one or the other, or, indeed, preferring the one to the other. So there's no valid policy based reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the reasons expressed above by DGG. See
WP:PURPLIST. -- WikHead (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The argument about a list being redundant to a category almost never works, although it comes up from time to time. The article isn't very well written, and there is a valid complaint raised that it is unreferenced. Only a weak keep, because there are plenty of other problems with the article, none that can't be fixed. I noticed that this was nominated along with list of bass guitarists, and, being musically ignorant, I assumed that double bass would be something similar, and it's nowhere close. While a bass guitar is an important part of rock and country bands, a double bass is an important part of a symphony orchestra, and can be described by musically ignorant people like me as "it looks like a cello". And why "contemporary" classical double bass players, as opposed to former ones? Is someone planning to remove a name if someone announces their retirement? Finally, although I believe that there are advantages to both lists and categories, a list that merely recites a bunch of names isn't much better than a category. Discriminating information should be added, such as which orchestra they're associated with, in the same way that we would associate an offensive lineman with their football team. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per
WP:CLN, this acts as a complement to the category and can be improved with references and additional encyclopedic information for each entry, placing each individual in context for the reader.--Beloved Freak 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: I'm not entirely sure why it's contemporary players or what that means. Curerently playing? Active within a certain timescale? Still alive? Playing contemporary classical music? (although the last doesn't seem to apply from the lead). I think it would be better as List of classical double bass players, or the lead needs to make it clearer what it means by contemporary, and why that's an important distinction.--Beloved Freak 11:19, 13 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of bass guitarists

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

This list seems redundant. We already have a category "Bass Guitarists", which is much easier to maintain individually than this huge, unreferenced list. I've removed a few entries that are not specifically known as bassists (like Courtney Love and Beck), then realized the whole thing is redundant and ought to go. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories and lists are two complementary methods of organization, and they are both useful. ItThere is no policy calling for one or the other, or, indeed, preferring the one to the other. So there's no valid policy based reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per
WP:CLN - lists and categories go hand-in-hand to aid navigation. Lugnuts (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Based on the above. Additionally, neither list is fully or effectively cross referenced. Both can be done better, neither can be done as well without the other as a complimentary tool, both from the perspective of the searcher or clean up editor. Whoever thinks they get brownie points for deleting articles; Stop! Think! Some people use WP to search for information. Deleting useful information does not help that pursuit.Trackinfo (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the reasons expressed above by DGG. While the category serves its intended purpose well, it's also rather fragmented by several nested sub-categories, taking longer to navigate, and does not provide immediate details pertaining to each bassist's associated acts. The list provides a single alphabetised overview of all bassists, regardless of whether their genre, gender, or nationality is known in advance. -- WikHead (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. In this case, the list can do something which the category cannot, which is to add discriminating information to each entry, such as the band that the artist is associated with. It would take some work, but this would be great as a sortable table. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, acts as a complement to the category. Can easily be improved with references and other info such as nationality, genre, associated acts.--Beloved Freak 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a lot of work and has a use (of sorts). can easily be expanded by those "in the know" but could suffer seriously by "additions" of every single bassist in a band...in which case it becomes a dangerous beast...--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can happen. Luckily, the same quality of Wikipedia that permits one group of people to create a dangerous beast allows another group of people to bring it back under control. Overall, Wikipedia's laissez-faire system works pretty well. Mandsford 20:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right. Every list in WP is subject to this, some much more so than this is likely to be. Yhe normal rule, in any case, is for those people with a WP article--so we have yet another check--just look at all the musicians articles we delete here, at prod, and at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mowmentum Magazine

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

Prod removed by author, no independent, verifiable sources to back up notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seemingly non-notable magazine. According to it's website it's only produced two magazines last year, and now appears to be defunct. No claims of notability and no third party sources to support notability. Shouldn't be a factor for the deletion, but there seems to be a campaign to promote it across Wikipedia as I've had to remove links to it from many inappropriate pages. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find
talk) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Nor can I. moɳo 00:14, 12 May 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. Merging or any other editorial action can be discussed on the talk page.

talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations

)

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

Proposing the article for deletion on the grounds of; The article is written in POV style and seems to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules:

WP:SOAP. Please note the final section of the article, which questions the legal borders of a neighbouring state and as such qualifies as propaganda.Hittit (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why rush to nominate the article for deletion? If the text, including the Sèvres section, is all properly referenced I don't see any reason to delete it. The article presents demands for Armenian Genocide reparations after all. Besides, I don't see why the reparations issue is not covered in Wikipedia. Its coverage is necessary if coverage on the
Armenian Genocide is to be complete. Those who feel concerned should simply wait for the development of the article, or even contribute. Thanks. --Davo88 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. 1) No signs of
WP:SOAP) cannot be serious. Aregakn (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Although referring to Sevres per se is not an issue, using a selective source claiming that the Treaty of Sevres is actually in force and not superseded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne is just another evidence of strong POV with a serious claim on the territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. Furthermore, please note that over 50% of the article is based on two selective sources: an article from Armenian Weekly web page from May this year and Alfred de Zayas (from what I think is the author’s own promotional web site). I would like to also point out that currently a substantial amount of the article is direct citations from original sources and as such needs to be examined whether or this also includes, but not limited to copyright violation
WP:COPYVIO.--Hittit (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment answars

1) Pls do not change your starting issue and make the comments of other editors look stupid (i changed them back).

2) If you have additional issues, add them in additional comments (as you did with

WP:copyvio

).

3) Pls do state the exact rules you think the article violates so they can be considered and don't change your mind on the way.

4) If you are uncertain of those, then maybe you should have followed the guidelines required before deletion proposal?

Addressing rules you mentioned:

1) if you notice, the article isn't named "Sevres treaty" or "demanding land by sevres agreement". It is about the Armenian Genocide Reparations. It includes international law background and researches in that matter. I see no reason to concentrate on the paragraph "The aftermath of the Armenian Genocide" that speaks of that particular issue.

2) The amount of reliable sources aren't an issue of rules; so speak of rules.

3) The article isn't based on sources; those are sources the article refers to, to show the claims are not a

WP:SYNTH

4) Armenian Weekly isn't who "tells" it. Pls don't manipulate. It is the Professor mentioned

5) That published statement is there for ascertain a point of view that many share (including Diaspora or some political parties), as written in the article. That very citation is for others (yet again) not to claim a

WP:OR

, (as there was some certainty in the possibility, and it was justifies, as it can be seen)

6) All the citations are from public domain (UN laws, news, published researches) and don't violate any

WP:COPYVIO

.

Note. Please, don't be looking for whatever rules MIGHT be suitable just to try imposing a deletion and be concrete! Aregakn (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin: After noticing a linking mistake in my opening statement I executed corrections. These corrections were reverted by
WP:POVFORK and was done as soon as the mistake was noted. Editing other user’s comments is discouraged. --Hittit (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to Admin. Hittit falsifies the facts. An opening statement was not to be "corrected" after certain voting and commenting took place. As I stated in the reason of bringing it back, new issues had to be mentioned in new comments, not changed in the opening statement so it would neutralise other editors' point. Aregakn (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Additionally, there was no link-mistake he claims but a change of policy he saw applicable (easily proven by checking history) and so it was him to change the comments, and is now blaming me for revert of that change. Aregakn (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a fairly important issue among Diasporan Armenians today who are the third or fourth generation of descendants of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide. During and after the Armenian Genocide, many Turks and other Muslims moved into the homes of the Armenians who had been deported or purchased or plundered their movable property and goods with the connivance of the government. The title is a bit clunky and might need some shortening but the article definitely has potential for greater expansion. The sources are perfectly fine and more than qualify as WP:RS. Many historians and lawyers today have been trying to extract some form of reparations from the Turkish government and from insurance companies (albeit to virtually no avail). The validity of international law is presented in the article. Perhaps we can also explore the reparations provided by Germany and other European countries to Jews following the Holocaust as a blueprint for the better elucidation of this article (if such information exists on Wikipedia). Needless to say, the nominator's reasons are largely an exaggeration and, frankly, unconvincing. One can't help but wonder if this article's nomination has something to do after the "Persecution of Muslims" fiasco.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I hope that issue with many others concerning it will be discussed after this finishes. Aregakn (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Marshal are you admitting that you are using this article in Wikipedia to build a law case and promote a suit for compensation by extending the content of the claims to the universal Internet community? I am not even sure how to classify that, perhaps an admin can comment. Nevertheless, one more strong reason to delete. BTW as in any population movement property changes hands in legal or illegal ways, e.g., massive waves of refugees (millions of people) in the Balkans and Caucasus accompanied by population exchanges between 1821 – 1922. This is also evident in recent cases, for example the expulsions of the Azeri population of Nagorno Karabag…numerous examples could be pointed. This is not a place to build a legal suite use Wikipedia to acquire notability and promote it. --Hittit (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I now notice that most of the article proposed for deletion has been merged[2] to the
Armenian Genocide article and as such provides more merit for the deletion case. --Hittit (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: It is neither Marshal nor me that is "promoting" anything. Others who support reparations such as De Zayas do use the basis of international law, the Sevres treaty, and so on, and I find it necessary that it's reported on Wikipedia because it corresponds perfectly with the purpose of the article (describing the demands for Armenian Genocide reparation). --Davo88 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note.Hittit your comments do not represent any reasons by Wiki why you proposed deletion.

1) Marshal only noted, that the issue worths being a separate article.

2) Once again, don't be looking for reasons on the way to ask for deletion

3) Now you agree on the content issues having no

WP:SOAP

and you propose a merge

4) If it was a merge you thought, "deletion" isn't what you had to propose first

Aregakn (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aregakn, it is pointless to beat around the bush, instead explain your actions. I did not agree on anything, but deletion and I have given my reasons (see my comments). I just noted that you merged the article as such you prove it to be fork. I am just pointing out to it. Since now you have merged almost the whole thing the only sensible action would be to delete the article. Consult
WP:COPYVIO due to the extensive cut and paste of original citations into the article. My five cents on the topic; and the admin will make the final call. I have said all I have regarding this matter. Best regards. .--Hittit (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Wrong assumptions and false claims.

1) I didn't merge the article. I summarised some content and put it in the Armenian Genocide.

2) You claimed the article was merged and this is why it is a reason to delete it but didn't note that what you called

WP:SOAP

remain. For your info, these rules are about any content anywhere in Wiki, not only for 1 separate article and so my comments are relevant.

3) WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK are the same rule, so no need to link them several times. I stress it again: YOU are yet to show what and how your claims are correct and not only claim and leave them be. Aregakn (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Proposing the article for deletion, Hittit has not presented any evidence for his claims. Calling rules with no explanation "why and how". He failed to do it even when asked several times after these many days. It is obvious that it is purely his desire to delete the article in abnsense of any reasoning. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
crystall ball out there. Brandmeister[t] 20:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. No, not really. Have you read the article? The article title talks about the demands and the title is being discussed on the talk-page. Th article itself is about the problem of reparations from the side of the guilty and issues connected to it. Aregakn (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I believe this article is very important and therefore should be maintained and further expanded. Reasoning brought by those who wish to delete it are purely of personal and subjective nature and in no way serve as a valid ground for the article to be deleted. Moreover, the initiator of deletion covers up with wikipedia rules to let out his own propaganda and does this in a very obvious manner. I see no explanation for the deletion and no contradiction to the rules here. Emilio1974 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Love

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

Fails

WP:BAND Morenooso (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No

reliable sources are cited for this recent band. It was nominated for a CSD which was declined by an anonymous IP and regular editor without a proper edit summary. A substitute PROD tag was placed on the article which also was declined by the same editor without an edit summary suggesting why the article is notable. Its present references are other Wikipedia articles and unreliable sources. --Morenooso (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, while I'd normally prefer to keep coverage of
crystal ball.--John Chestpack (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per John Chestpack. Pretty much nailed it. I also think that Reckless Love (album) should be up for deletion.--IslandAtSea (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the news and reviews that I found were on blogs.
talk) 22:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckless Love (album) has been created. --Morenooso (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to pass
WP:BAND at this time. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Per above. moɳo 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just added a bunch of references that hopefully prove that Reckless Love is one of the hottest bands in Finland right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.53.151 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady and Gentlemen

)

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

Only source is her Twitter, which is a primary source. Can't verify track listing or single release anywhere else, and the cover used in this article is a fake. Nothing on Gnews; only hits online are forums or fansites which are not reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles need to have a subject that is notable enough, and, sadly, this release doesn't quite cut the mustard.--John Chestpack (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
notable -- all nine of her studio albums released in the U.S. have reached #12 or higher on the Billboard 200 chart. And there are sources indicating that this album is being recorded -- see [3] for example. However, until a release date is available, we may want to hold off on having an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect — to LeAnn Rimes discography, as stated above. moɳo 00:14, 12 May 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) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Chaim Gebber

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

Non-notable dance teacher. No reliable sources to back up claim that caused A7 speedy deletion to be declined. Gigs (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD went through. moɳo 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

What is "undefined"? I think your script is broken. As an aside, the community has rejected images in !votes as well. I'll let the maintainer know. Gigs (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at least a + or a - I can understand, but I cannot decipher these symbols. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-write the script for myself.--moɳo 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I intend to rescue this article; the independent sources have recently been deleted, along with some very reasonable claims of notability. Unfortunately, the wording was one-to-one from Gebber's web site and had to go, but I think I could could rewrite that in a way the sources support. (Folks, please have a look at the page history before nominating) --Pgallert (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated what was there and put into different wording. However, I could not find any external support for the main claim of "best choreography" in 1993, and the CityFu source is shady. All that remains is one article about him in the Shanghai Daily, not sure if this is sufficient. --Pgallert (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful. The old material is a close paraphrase of [4], bordering on copyright violation. I considered restoring it myself before nominating it for AfD but then I saw it was copied from there. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I see what you mean. But as it is similarly close to the external sources you cannot really say if perhaps Gebber put it on his web site after the newspaper article appeared. I see it as an example of the difficult question of "Who copied from whom? --Pgallert (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. —fetch ·comms 00:44, 13 May 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.

talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keuthonymos

)

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

if the creator can get some reliable and accurate sources and post them as references, it should be good to go. otherwise, according to wikipedia's notability standards, it doesn't come close yet. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for the awarness, I have the references coming, Ive been to busy with work to cite them. --Equd (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands as of the submitting of this comment.--John Chestpack (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple references, the alternate spelling is Ceuthonymus.--Savonneux (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment.--IslandAtSea (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. The Greek was impossible, I 'fixed' it (correctly, I believe). David V Houston (talk) 23:21, 18 May 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 and move to

talk) 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Mickey factz

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 musician who has not enough significant coverage by non-trivial published works, nor has he released anything other than independent albums. Article of the subject has been deleted six times.1, 2 Still fails
WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, definitley not
NOTABLE for inclusion on Wikipedia.--John Chestpack (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I attempted to move (rename) the page to "Mickey Factz" so the guy's last name is capitalized like in the land of people who know how to spell. I got this message: You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation. So as noted by the nominator, not only have articles about this guy already been deleted but an admin also applied the old
salt. We can assume that the article creator is simply trying again with a slightly different article title. ~~Is this a reason for speedy deletion? Perhaps a block on the editor(s) too?~~ DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - allow me to add
~~WP:NOTMYSPACE to the rationales already contributed.~~ DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed to keep: Per Gongshow. We all missed some important coverage. I promise to do a better search next time. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
~~talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Changed to keep: Per Gongshow.
talk) 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — A technical glitch allowed this article to be created; actions to take: block user, create protect new name, etc. moɳo 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage exists in WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural Comment: If the article is kept, it should be renamed so the guy's last name is capitalized, and the current restriction against creating an article of that exact title should be removed. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The body of the article has been blanked as a copyright violation and will have to be removed or rewritten if the article is kept. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will rewrite the body of the article; it should take me about an hour or so. Gongshow ^Talk 02:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - I have re-written the body of the article. It can be viewed here. Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've placed it in the main article. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily notable, and shows it now. Well done Gongshow! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 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. Discounting early comments as no longer relevant due to the substantial edits to the article, I find a consensus to keep.
talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Objects visible from space

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 was just created. While the topic could be notable, there are virtually no objects that can be determined from space. The article says that "cities and dams" or something are visible. Maybe, but I don't see how the article can be expanded. Maybe someone can
~~userfy this for a while to get some relevant content, but until then I do not believe it is worthy of inclusion, as it is unlikely to be expanded.~~ — Timneu22 · talk 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
delete - no references, but if the creator can collect some reliable sources, then it should be fine. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can userfy it, if that's what you want. Of course, if nothing manmade can be seen from space without binoculars or a good camera, then that's all the article should say. But I was hoping to address the continuing dispute over whether the Great Wall of China is visible from space. And what instruments you need to see it, if naked eye observation has always failed so far.

Also, if the Great Wall is (barely?) visible, is anything else visible? How about an airport runway, which ought to provide a lot more contrast and be a lot wider than a wall made of (earthern?) material the same color as the background? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information seems like it should go on Great Wall of China, nowhere else. (You'd have a larger article if you listed things that cannot be viewed from space.) ;-) — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not clear whether objects visible from the exosphere should be included in this list, or where the exosphere ends and outer space begins. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
~~Also, are we talking only about man-made objects, or should~~
~~Ayers Rock be included? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Change to Keep. The article now discusses the concerns I raised here, rather than attempting to provide a list of objects. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow-- an editor who has contributed to Wikipedia since 2001 [9]. I don't understand why an article would be created out of original research (or maybe original synthesis, since I don't think he's been in outer space). Is this a test or something? Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created 1,100 Wikipedia articles. In nearly every case, I just made a stub: i.e., a paragraph or less of text. I then hoped that others would help me expand it (see
WP:TEAMWORK). In recent years, it has become commonplace for other to expend more effort trying to kill such a stub, rather than help me flesh it out. (I find this puzzling, but I can always "retreat" and userfy the stub if the number of people trying to get on board is lower than the number trying to sink the article.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is an oft-discussed topic and the claim that it is unlikely to be expanded is mere speculation at this point; Ed Poor was, when asked, able to expand it. It would be a shame to see this deleted. Kansan (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this point I'd go as far as deleting based on
WP:COPYVIO. — Timneu22 · talk 19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete.~~ Per Blanchardb and [10], there is no unambiguous definition of what should be included in this list, especially if we include the Great Wall of China, since we would have to include all the largest interstate highways as well. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That contradicts Tim the nominator, who said there are virtually no objects that can be determined from space. So which is it? So many visible objects that the article would be too big? Or so few of them that there's nothing to write about? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list now, so the above no longer applies to this article, which has gotten better but still needs some work. PleaseStand ^(talk) 11:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:SNOWBALL -- it's snowing!--IslandAtSea (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Userify and research further if you feel so. The Wall may be visible although in rare conditions. I don't want to comment on the notability of the topic, but it should have been researched better.
East of Borschov (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment from creator: I'm getting the sense that (A) an article like this should not be submitted in an incomplete state, with the hope that others will
join the writing team
and whip into ship together, but rather (B) the originator should work on it in his own userspace until it reaches a certain level of viability.

So shall I just userfy it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response It would give you the opportunity to work on it at your convenience. Wikipedia has changed quite a bit over the years (for the better, I believe), and it's the victim of its own success. I gather that in Wikipedia's salad days, the appearance of a new article would inspire others to add their knowledge to the article. Now, the appearance of a new article means that it will be inspected to see whether it is, on its face, a good encyclopedia article. Although I honestly believe that there are people who take a delight in nominating articles, the vast majority of the nominations are made by people who are concerned about the quality of Wikipedia, which is taken more seriously now than it was even five years ago. When I create an article, I operate under the assumption that it's likely to be examined with a critical eye, so I work on it in userspace first, where I have all the time in the world to provide enough sources needed to back up the statements made. It may take more time that way, but not as much time as it would take for me and for its supporters to argue about its continued existence. In addition, it sets a good example for others. I'm glad to see that the days of "this-is-a-stub" are becoming just a memory. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rescue or userfy. Since when did "Start" become the minimum standard? This is a common
Your mother joke (as in, your mother is so fat, we can see her from outer space). It is notable and can be sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As suggested in the nom, I'd like to see it userfied for now; personally I don't think it's possible to expand, but let a user figure that out. — Timneu22 · talk 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it quite a bit at this time. Please look at it and give me a word. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indiscriminate, original research magnet, and poorly written at that. The great wall of china isn't even visible from space. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point. See the article as it reads now. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Move to Article Incubator per author request and per author's thoughts on the article, respectively. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a valid encyclopedic topic. It also It now has hordes of references in it. Dream Focus 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the rescue effort has worked; the article I nominated does not look like the article that appears now. — Timneu22 · talk 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Bearian's work. Now THAT's how an article should be written. Mandsford 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the problem with this is two-fold... firstly it needs to define how far up (minimum) we are talking, secondly it needs to discuss "resolution"... but combining these two factors you get a pretty straightforward result ..that anything more than a given width (not length as per Great Wall) will appear due to simple optical science. In a nutshell anything natural or man-made, with enough contrast in relation to its background, becomes visible at width x in relation to height y above the earth.--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be some mention of the Kármán line, which is the conventional definition of outer space starting at an altitude of 100 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. I'm more surprised that nobody has complained about the title, since a world of objects are visible to me from the space that I happen to be occupying. If it's night time, an entire galaxy's worth can come into my field of vision. Mandsford 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SoFixIt - Which is easier, to vote for deleting an entire article, and to have several people get involved in a keep/delete debate (simply because one aspect of the article is unclear)? Or to clarify that aspect? When most people say "visible from space" they mean with the naked eye. Everyone knows that Google has photographs of every street and house in the civilized world. These things are much more easily seen then the earth-colored GW of C. But if the distinction between "visible to the naked eye" and "visible with binoculars" (or telephoto lens) must be made, then by all means suggest that we make that distinction - or just go into the article and do it yourself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian added the information to the article more than an hour before your post. Mandsford 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, sorry, Bearian, I should have given you some appreciation instead of ranting like that. But pray hold me excused, because the hostile, "kill it before it's viable" approach grates on my nerves. I have probably spent more time defending the article than writing it, and that's lopsided. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Uncle Ed, who has my appreciation as one of the people who made Wikipedia possible, I'd offer the opposite viewpoint-- that this experience is actually confirmation that Wikipedia does function as a community that is building "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Though the Deletion forum may seem like a place where the spirit is "kill it before it's viable", what I have seen in three years of participating is that very few ideas are actually "killed" here. Nearly every action brings an opposite, equal and positive reaction in the form of people seeking a way to preserve the information. Sometimes, there's a rescue (as happened here), with sources being added and more information being gathered. Sometimes, the article creator is encouraged to keep working on the idea in his or her own user page. Sometimes, suggestions are made about how to place the content into existing articles and other places on Wikipedia. On those occasions where the information truly is erased from existence, it's not unusual for it to come back months later in another article. The path that it has taken may be different than what folks like you and Jimbo Wales envisioned almost ten years ago, but I think that it's validated the crazy idea that amateur writers can, when given the opportunity to do so, create a reference work that is just as reliable as a published encyclopedia, with a currency that a book cannot have. For the most part, the people you see here -- the hostile, the nice, the reasonable, the unreasonable-- are good folks, whose social skills are constantly improving as we argue over what Wikipedia should be. It is my hope that when the 10th anniversary is marked, you will be able to say that Wikipedia met and exceeded your expectations. Best wishes. Mandsford 01:26, 16 May 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. AfD is not for cleanup.
talk) 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

John Jaffer Janardhanan (1982 film)

John Jaffer Janardhanan (1982 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)

movie that does not state notability IN ARTICLE. if the creator can give sufficient information for notability with references, then it should be fine. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salih has now sourced the articles. It is a 1982 film, so online sources will be thin (most indic language archives begin only from 2000 or so). But any
Malayalam film that stars Mammootty is automatically notable and would have had lots of media coverage in the print media.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (Strongly) .Notable . Arjun ⁰²⁴ 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's good faith nomination is based upon a wish that the article be improved (as it has been), not an assertion that it cannot be... showing perhaps a misunderstanding of what AFD is for. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 13 May 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 deleted as copyright infringement. Canley (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywell

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

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

I am not certain if this is a hoax or just bad writing, but I don't think it belongs here. Please let me know if I am correct.
talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It's just writing that isn't consistent with Wikipedia format. There is a Hollywell, Queensland, Australia [11], and its referred to on the List of Gold Coast suburbs. Someone can rescue this if they want to (I don't want to). This looks like it was lifted from a FAQ somewhere, so no great loss if it isn't rescued--- someone will eventually write about it. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is lifted from another site: [12]. I'll put one of those CSD tags on it for copyright violation. Good catch, Mandsford!
talk) 17:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 12 May 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. Even with quite a few keep !votes discounted, there appears to be a consensus to keep.
talk) 03:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Tzvi Berkowitz

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}}.

Tzvi Berkowitz (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 has gone through several rounds of prod/deprod, de-peacocking, and notability-tagging, but the concerns of several editors (including myself) remain unresolved. I see the main problem here being that the existing refs lend no support to notability. Specifically, they're all either simple website listings (this one is typical) or brief acknowledgments (this one is typical). Standard Google searching turns up nothing more than the usual web-flotsam (blogs, ratemyprofessors.com page, zoominfo business listing and the like). GS doesn't show any citations to any of his academic writings. On balance, it looks to me that this case does not satisfy notability requirements, so I thought I'd bring it here for a broader evaluation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Absolutely no "blogs, ratemyprofessors.com page, zoominfo business listing and the like" are used as references or citations in the article, altho they do add suitable credence to the fact that this subject is notable enough and more than merely "exists" as alleged by the nominator at Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz. IZAK (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know that that's not what I said – please, please stop the semantic games. Rather, I explained my good-faith effort to locate sources through the standard channels and basically what came up fell into 2 categories: non substantive hits to pages like his entry at ratemyprofessors.com, and pages related to what appear to be a relative's legal problems that happen to incidentally mention his name as well. The latter were not added to the article as sources for obvious reasons. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I'm not seeing a claim of notability in the article. Google Books and Scholar reveals only acknowledgements. There are many articles on Talmudic scholars on Wikipedia, and their contributions are well-covered by Google. Any claim that this field is too obscure to make a notability judgement is invalid. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references section of this article provides no hint of
notability
, nor does a Google check.Change vote to Keep—see below.

While Orthodox rabbis generally don't get "press" on the internet, this page really needs to add some evidence of notability from books or newspapers to justify its existence. I think what's going on here is that someone is trying to populate the Template:Ner Yisroel box with every rabbi who teaches at Ner Yisroel, producing quite a few red links. This is not what's being done with other yeshivas; for example, see Template:Mir Yeshiva, where the roshei yeshiva and assorted "famous lecturers" who are notable enough to have their own page are the only ones included in the template box. Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: I was the one to create the Ner Yisroel template. It is not a plot. There are very few rabbis on it, even with the few red links on it, that in any case refer to the most senior and most famous rabbis there who are its most important rabbinical figures and not, as you incorrectly say "with every rabbi who teaches at Ner Yisroel" which is patently false. Some of the names are of the most famous deceased ones in any case. As for why other yeshivas don't have templates for their faculties, it's not a praise, it's because there are few editors from that sector who can do it, but you are reading the situation backwards, the facts that there is "no template" does not prove that other templates are faulty for existing, on the contrary the lack of such templates calls out for the creation of them that would help identifying and navigating important faculty members. There are not many famous yeshivas and once rabbis attain a position in them, they automatically attain a high level of notability. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep. I apologize for my ignorance of East Coast yeshivas. I just did a quick look around some blogs, and reread the article. Anyone who is the son-in-law of Rabbi
WP:PROF #6 applies here. Yoninah (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The applicable guideline here I believe is
WP:N I am all ears. Joe407 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Because: (1) This article is about the highest-level and
WP:BIO. (5) The original discussions took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Notable? One user who had questioned and one prodded it, then evidently accepted the improvements and then added their tweaks in subsequent approval [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]. But for some unknown reason the nominator of this AfD got involved and was determined to attack it, citing technicalities about "insufficient sources" that he asserted only proved that the subject merely "existed" but revealing that he had no insight into the context and subject matter of this article that he now wishes to see deleted. A lengthy discussion between us has ensued at Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz that is worth reading given that he has now seen fit to nominate this article for deletion in the midst of that discussion. (6) The nominator should recuse himself and cancel this nomination as he is an involved party to the dispute as to the notability of this subject given his comments on the above talk page. (7) I have improved the article and found at least ten reliable places online where the subject's notability and importance is stated, some in Jewish newspapers and online websites, beyond any shadow of a doubt for those familiar with the Haredi yeshiva world in the United States. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: Recently there was a discussion similar to this one, about how attaining one of the top positions in a world famous yeshiva creates notability in and of itself and the result was "keep", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Weinberg. IZAK (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is very little reason to delete this topic. The rabbi is a very prominent scholar in his field. Just because that field is esoteric and not widely discussed in the media does not make the rabbi's contribution to the field irrelevant nor his stature within that field unnoticeable by either the segment of those who study Talmud nor members of Wikipedia who are well versed in it and most capable of contributing to Wikipedia about the topic.Guy Montag (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent haredi talmudist despite lack of secondary academic/journalistic literature. Fits notability by requirement #6 --Yodamace1 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User admits that there are no
secondary sources for the subject, so their notvote really says "Delete". Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Abductive is incorrect. I did not say "no secondary sources." I wrote that there is a lack, e.g. a deficiency. --Yodamace1 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Saudi Arabian footballers. Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means I am going to delete
Abdullaziz Al-Dosari as there are no secondary sources for this non-notable subject. Chesdovi (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh. I have created an article on a Saudi footballer,
Nawaf Al Abed, and I thought this might have been an oblique reference to that. I encourage you to nominate articles on non-notable subjects for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And are you going to explain to me why 20yr old
Nawaf Al Abed is more notable than the good rabbi? Was it that 2 second non-goal? Chesdovi (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I created the article because of that goal, but the only thing that matters is coverage in secondary sources, and
WP:N and nominate them for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ATH: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition are notable as they have achieved the "status" of participating at the highest level of football. - Yipee. Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per .Guy Montag above. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Without commentary this notvote is a notvote. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abductive, please
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Lay off and let the closing admin decide the merits of the case because you are not the chief judge and lord high executioner in this case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to agree with Abductive here. All of a sudden this article had a batch of completely inane votes based on
verifiable reasons why he's important enough to warrant an article, not just more Wikipedia editors saying so without explaining why. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sorry, but I count 11 distinct posts by Abductive here. I myself agree with one of them, but are you agreeing with some or all of the seven above, or all or some of the four below, or some combination? I just want to make sure I'm following precisely where everyone stands, and even if we had not be in new wp-beta mode, it would shortly begin to become slightly challenging on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Abductive's "AFD is not a vote" comments, repeated several times. I have not yet formulated an opinion about the merits of the actual article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive could have cast his vote, which thus far he hasn't done, and then made whatever comments he liked within that. Instead he chose to set himself up the uncalled for "judge" of other users' votes and comments. IZAK (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guy and IZAK. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IZAK, Guy, AND Chesdovi. Avi (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important and notable personality backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per Izak, above. A couple of points. First, I'm the one who first questioned whether this bio was notable, at the wikiproject. Which led to it being brought here. And which led to improvement in the article. Second point -- and this isn't meant to be BITEy, though as he is not a newbie Abductive should certainly know better. Abductive does not understand what "per" means, when used by editors at AfDs. It means, long-hand, "I agree for the reasons stated articulately by editor X, to whom I refer, and believe that it would do no service to simply repeat that editor's points, or re-state the points in inferior manner, so please treat my !vote as being based on the rationale editor X has stated quite well above". It is not by any means a "notvote", nor is it a !vote lacking a rationale, as our friend improperly charges. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least IZAK has joined me in making asses of ourselves by posting the same comment multiple times. Abductive (reasoning) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the self-deprecation. WP needs more of that.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abductive: Actually I was responding to your highly unusual seemingly "
WP:AFD. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok. Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ok" what? Could you elaborate please Abductive. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rav Berkowitz non-notable?! Is this a joke? Within the Chareidi religious community he is a very big name. Given the conversation that I'm seeing here, I'm really having a hard time adhering to
WP:AGF. This is a spurious AFD. Nmagedman (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems that one of the problems that people outside of the Haredi spectrum are having is that most Haredi rabbis function well-below the fanfare of the media and academic circles that in no way detracts from their status and fame as genuinely notable Torah and Talmudic scholars and personalities in those circles that value their attributes most. While it may frustrate some Wikipedian purists who are obsessed with technicalities alone, those editors who are familiar with the domain of Talmudic studies and current notable Torah scholars in the USA do not merely require or await the validation of outside secular sources. Sometimes there has to be a partial dose of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to create decent articles about important people and events. If this was an ordinary pulpit rabbi, a minor author with the title rabbi, or even a local well-known personality it would not matter. But this is major, relatively young, living scholar acknowledged as such by his peers and in his domain. Wikipedia needs to note that and have articles about such personalities, and not impose tough artificial statutes that cut off its nose to spite its face. The positive spirit of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built is as important if not more so in cases like this. Articles need to be allowed to evolve and input should be sought from specialists. When serious voices of objection are raised from seasoned editors familiar with the subject there does not have to be a rush to delete just as a show of obstinacy. Careful consideration of what is being said is called for. The sources provided thus far are a good start. They may not be perfect but they do reliably point to a major personality, no doubt about it. In years to come they could be beefed up some more, but sources in and of themselves do not create the reality of who this person is and what his standing is. IZAK (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia biographies must have better sources than local websites. When a scholar does not have the attention of the world, news articles, they are not ready for a biography yet. MiRroar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MiRoar: Your concerns are appreciated and this is not the first time Judaic editors have to grapple with this challenge, but please note these two big points: (A) User
reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. (B) You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, Haredi rabbis would probably be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Two questions asked in good faith: (1) is this the type of source you refer to above when you say "religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable
reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures"?, and (2) how exactly do your assertions of the fairly extreme luddite nature of these communities square with the observation that there are indeed lots of web references like the one just mentioned? It seems to me that if matters were in fact that extreme, we would find absolutely nothing on the web: no ratemyprofessors.com page, no zoominfo.com page, no e-zine adverts, no self-authored web content, no photos on flickr, etc. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete. I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be
verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor, and I was unable to find much better in a Google news archive search. So I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per IZAK's points. I take particular note of the notes in the article indicating that younger notable rabbis cite R. Berkowitz as an authoritative source for teachings--the traditional measure of notability in rabbinical circles going back at least to the Talmud. So I am reasonably convinced that he is a notable figure. Having said this, I would hope that over time the article can be improved by some indications about the content of his thought and influence. But that is a matter for editing, not AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Notability is NOT inherited. No sources are presented to bolster the claim that all rabbis at his institutional level are notable. Finally, I note that the article lacks the most important thing; any description of what scholarly contribution(s) the rabbi has made. Not one word of his wisdom is related. Without this sort of infomation there is nothing encyclopedic to say, and therefore no reason to have an article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per IZAK, and I must say I do not remeber agreeing with him before. We are not talking about "a lecturer", we are talking about the top lecturer, who has been in a major position for decades, in one of the oldest, most prominent, and unique Yeshivot in the world. (I have not attended the institution, but I have lived for many years in Baltimore.) If Ner Israel properly follows Jewish tradition and does not churn out tons of publicity, that is not to its detriment.Mzk1 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marudio

Marudio (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 failed CSD, but it seems like an obvious attempt to advertise a completely non-notable future film. — Timneu22 · talk 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written and produced by two nonames, complete crystalballing, no evidence of pre-release hype. Fails
WP:NFF by a wide margin. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can find exactly zero references for this film. Not only does it fail notability, it fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Possible hoax.
talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourcable and per way too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I meant to post this a while ago, but mistakenly put it on the article's talk page... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:59, 13 May 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 The article was speedy deleted per
WP:CSD#G12.. (non-admin closure) moɳo 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ipod repair

Ipod repair (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 written in a how-to style, pure
the discussion about how-to articles. — Timneu22 · talk 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete {{
db-copyvio}} already posted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

(ec) Speedy Delete as copyvio. My attempts to tag the article in this way failed fo some reason, but another editor has now managed to tag it. I42 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is spam blacklisted, I had to take the http part out of the url so it didn't create a hyperlink.
talk) 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! I42 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An exact copy of "iPod Repair - Guide to Having Your iPod Repaired" by Daniel Cieslak. Even if User:Mortoleeuk2 is Daniel Cieslak and not just someone ripping off another person's work, it's a how to guide-- and not much of a how-to guide. Short version-- you can pay someone to do it, or you can look on the Internet to find out how to do it, and you really ought to pay someone to do it. It kind of reminds me of a National Lampoon newspaper column called "The Family Dentist", and the answer to every question ended with "You'd better call your family dentist." Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there's a
discussion about how-to articles and CSD criteria, if you're interested. — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 11 May 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) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The Klan (Belgian band)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Klan (Belgian band)

Articles for deletion/The Klan (Belgian band) (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/The Klan (Belgian band) (3rd nomination)

The Klan (Belgian 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)

unnotable music band. Article was created by the acknowledged son of Luc Hensill (bands' guitarist), User:Raoniz. Nominated once but no concensus was reached. Licory (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. moɳo 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I really would like to know why Licory (talk) personally want to delete the article The Klan (Belgian band) for the second time in not even five months!
The Klan (Belgian band) released three L.P. albums on a major label :

EMI / # 062.64312 : The Klan / L.P. Album / Belgium / 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).

Universal Music
) / # MPB 3020 : The Klan / Join Us / L.P. Album / Belgium / 1966

Equipe Internacional / # EQI-2001 : The Klan / Join Us / L.P. Album / Brazil / 1967

Albums References : the
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep
(national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives :

The Klan, EMI, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives

"Join Us", The Klan, PALETTE RECORDS, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives

The Klan: Already Mine, Wit-lof from Belgium, vol.1: 50's - 60's CD Compilatie, 1990 EMI 794 043

Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, The
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep
(Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p.312: The Klan, isbn = 90-5096-069-3

The Klan (The Belgian Beatles) was selected by
Paris Olympia theater the 11th April 1967 in the afternoon with live broadcast by the French radio Europe 1
(Musicorama presented by Hubert).

One week of Shows of The Klan (Belgian band) at the Ancienne Belgique in Brussels with Michel Polnareff and Jeff Beck at the guitar (with fantastic jam-sessions in the afternoon), Shows of The Klan (Belgian band) at the Wolu-City in Brussels with The Who, etc ...

Many Shows TV broadcasted everywhere in Europe : for the
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep
, for Netherlands Tv Broadcast, etc ...

Several Shows of more than one hour of music for RTBF (INR) TV Broadcast : Feu Vert (Green Light) as Headliner Band.

More details : *The Klan (Belgian band) page

Before to be called The Klan (Belgian band), The Klan (Belgian band) was called "Les Ombres" :

Shows of Les Ombres at the
Paris Olympia theater with Chuck Berry : 7 February and 2 November 1965 with live broadcast by the French radio Europe 1
(Musicorama).

Les Ombres on tour with Gene Vincent : Paris, Lyon, Lausanne (Switzerland), etc ... in 1964.

Shows of Les Ombres in Rock Festival as musicians of Vince Taylor in Paris in 1964, etc ...

In 1965, Olympia Records sells the contracts of "Les Ombres" to Palette Records (BMG Universal Music).

The producer of Palette Records imposes a new name to the "Les Ombres": "The Klan".

Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, The
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep
(Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p.335: Les Ombres, isbn = 90-5096-069-3

Greetings! Raoniz (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS The contributions of Licory (talk) are here: [20]
Attempting to delete The Klan (Belgian band) are the only contributions of that "user".
Greetings! Raoniz (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
WP:MUSIC#5 - band has released two albums on the EMI label. Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment According to the article, there's only ONE album, Join Us, which had been released on the EMI label. "Wit-lof from Belgium, vol.1: 50's - 60's CD Compilatie, 1990 EMI 794 043" mentioned later is not a studio album of The Klan but rather a compilation of songs by various artists.--Licory (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per article's author). # MPB 3020: The Klan / Join Us / L.P. Album / Belgium / 1966 is the second album released on a major label: PALETTE RECORDS BMG UNIVERSAL MUSIC (BMG(the world's third largest music publisher and the world's largest independent music publisher), UNIVERSAL MUSIC(the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations (from Wikipedia)).

"Join Us", The Klan, PALETTE RECORDS, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives Raoniz (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question- Which album is the first and which is the second? Join us of EMI or Join us of PALETTE RECORDS BMG UNIVERSAL MUSIC ? IMHO, they are the same album , with the EMI version being a
re-release. In fact it's not only my personal opinion, It could be clearly assumed from the link you provided us. -Licory (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

In 1981, E.M.I. remastered, in Stereo and with a quality enhancement of sound, the L.P. Album of The Klan (Belgian band). The master tape was subjected to further electronic treatment by specialist mastering engineers. EMI released a new version of the Album because the original mastering was Mono.

"Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording (frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release) (from Wikipedia)". Raoniz (talk) 20:52, 18 May 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 g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girglesclech

Girglesclech (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)

Inappropriate and unconstructive material for Wikipedia. Johnny Beta (talk) 16:04, 11 May 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. already speedy deleted FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The doms

The doms (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 from the early 90s that have made no footprint on the internet. Doesn't seem likely. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kateda

Kateda (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 reliable sources found to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:MANOTE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject appears to fail
WP:NPOV. Can't find independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:MANOTE. moɳo 19:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unsourced article with unsubstantiated claims, such as being "at least 3,000 years old, perhaps even 10,000". I found nothing to indicate notability when I searched. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Formula One TV coverage

BBC Formula One TV coverage (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 about one television station's coverage of Formula One, with most content from pages such as this,; a basic copy of the coverage. There are no other articles dedicated to a TV stations coverage of a sport, and rightly so, it is not a notable enough subject for inclusion here. QueenCake (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If all the
spam were removed, there would be insufficient content to warrant a separate article. Formula One#Television already covers the basic facts, and could simply be expanded as needed. Davnor (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.--Midgrid (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all the above comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources - notability not proven and unlikely to be. 4u1e (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. moɳo 19:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per User:Davnor. --Falcadore (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worthy of a newspaper article not an encyclopaedia..--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:33, 13 May 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. Merge and move should be discussed on the talk page.
talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Disasters on the Severn

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)

Badly written, sensationalist and largely unreferenced article. The only reference is for an event that already exists as a Wikipedia article -
talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If it was sourced, it would probably be a legitimate spinoff of River Severn. I've never understood people who can tell us the exact dates of disasters and how many people died and all the details, but they can't tell us where the hell they learned it from. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of that article you will see that its creator was an incurable spammer whose only contributions before he took a wikiholiday were to promote his own website about River Severn history. That adds another reason why I believe it doesn't belong as a standalone article. --
talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified bad faith contribution. If someone manages to verify any of these claims, merge any verified information to River Severn. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Enough incidents now properly referenced for this to be rescuable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with River Severn article perhaps with some editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of the article is notable enough. That the article needs improvement and better referencing is not a reason to delete.
talk) 08:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is that at the moment, if we remove all the unverified content, there's nothing left. I'm quite happy to make an effort to look for sources when people make good faith contributions, but I don't see why we should be expected to go running round cleaning up pages designed to promote someone else's website. But if someone wants to verify this anyway (and even a reliable assurance that the information is broadly accurate would be enough), I'll happily change this to Keep. I might see if there's a suitable wikiproject to ask about this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref for the Stancliffe grounding. There is a source for the
ISBN 978-1-84868-033-3 which could be added, although this would be an AGF addition. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I've done a bit further digging, and the plot thickens. Both the major references to this article were added by User:Severnbore. The external link was originally to http://www.severnbore.ndirect.co.uk/bridges3.htm (now a dead link), then later changed by the same user to http://www.severntales.co.uk/bridges3.htm (link later fixed). This is an apparently self-published website maintained by a Chris Witts (albeit one that looks at first glance fairly reliable for a self-published site). User:Severnbore also used as a reference a book by the very same Chris Witts. It was published by Tempus publishing, which, to be fair, doesn't look like vanity publisher. However, we now have a major problem that this information may be well researched, but we only have the say-so of the article author that the sources which he wrote himself are accurate. Hmm, difficult. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved the referencing as far as I can - Note such referencing is only as far as to verify the date and basic facts of the relevant incident. Text may still need to be tweaked. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION Thanks to MJroots for the work done on improving the article (to which I have also added). I'm now very happy to withdraw the deletion nomination, but would like to see the article renamed as
talk) 10:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure that the rename is necessary - see
WP:RM would be in order to judge consensus. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Good point. So I won't rename, but will wait for the deletion request to be closed. I'll then open a move request - but I do want to get rid of "disaster" from the title as, for example, two people falling off a bridge is not a disaster, although it is an incident notable enough to be included in the list. --
talk) 10:41, 18 May 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
talk) 02:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Magna Carta (video game)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Magna Carta (video game)

Articles for deletion/Magna Carta (video game) (2nd nomination)

Magna Carta (video game) (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 stub contains no information that is not in the separate game articles. This page has been a stub for a long time, and the only new information it contained was moved to one of the other articles.JokerWylde (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magna Carta: The Phantom of Avalanche - Insufficient content to warrant a separate article, but making the page a redirect could be useful. Davnor (talk) 14:25, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Merge/redirect — to Magna Carta: The Phantom of Avalanche. moɳo 19:02, 11 May 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. Aside from a transwiki argument, nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God in Old English poetry

Names of God in Old English poetry (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 appears to be OR and doesn't have any real notability. It ought to be deleted or included in something other than a independent article. Sadads (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provisionally, pending some kind of input as to what to do with this. This is a list of kennings similar metaphors used to name God in Old English poetry. It's largely self-referencing, since the poems in which they appear are cited for each entry, and doesn't really contain enough synthesis or analysis to qualify as "original research". It seems to be a worthy subject, and besides, <wink>it's interesting and I like it</wink>. Do we, or any other project, have lists of kennings in the old Germanic languages to which this could be appended? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we do have List of kennings. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It doesn't seem to qualify as
OR, but the lack of independent sourcing is a problem. I'd suggest tagging the article as unreferenced and allowing time for improvement. Davnor (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It could be added as a See Also to
talk) 14:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Iff we get some independent sources, then keep. DS (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
A very quick search shows the translation of dryhten to Lord in
talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely fixable.
T
02:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary seems like appendix material. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep of course. It can be improved to be less list-like, but the topic makes a perfectly valid to both
dab (𒁳) 07:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep line refs could be added, but otherwise the works are very well known, and citation of specific editions not really needed. As it is, it might be better renamed to "List of ...", or expanded. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baganga, the game

Baganga, the game (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. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
I am world champion at this: Baganga is an ongoing game, played in groups, wherein each group member must say "Baganga" (and place their thumb on their forehead with fingers upstretched) immediately after they or a fellow group member burps. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:NOTABILITY. Davnor (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"A web search will show that at least one individual not known by the aforementioned youth group knows about and practices this game" - one whole person? Wow, it must be notable then! Seriously, delete per
WP:MADEUP, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A web search will show that at least one individual not known by the aforementioned youth group knows about and practices this game. Wow, the creator had to spell it out! -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have speedied, but couldn't find a good category. And unfortunately, the creator didn't like my PROD. Having to do this by AfD is dumb, but oh well. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begone-ga!!! No indication that this is notable. If you can't burp, can armpit noise be substituted? Mandsford (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per above. moɳo 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per
talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW Delete per
WP:NOT. Kansan (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per every rule in the book. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fiftytwo thirty (citing
WP:NFT, etc...) Airplaneman ✈ 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as completely unnotable, not to mention that it sounds like a boring game. Is there a rule about drinking
carbonated beverages before playing? Bramble claw x 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless I get to add "Grantuphnalim", a game I just invented where everyone has to say "Grantuphnalim" over and over until someone walks away in boredom... Sorry about the silly !vote, but this is a clear snowball so what the heck --
clipman 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Grantuphnalim. Grantuphnalim. Grantuphnalim. Grantu... oh, look at the time, I gotta go. Mandsford (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment uuurrpp "Baganga!" --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 16 May 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 speedily kept, topic is notable and the rationale given is not a valid reason for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger (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:NLT PER WP:NLT Subject needs to withdraw legal threat.

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep
WP:NLT, if it applies, means that the user would be blocked, not that an article about him would be deleted. What if Barack Obama threatened to sue Wikipedia? C'mon, let's not be silly here. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep per
WP:SNOW. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 11 May 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) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

British Pashtun

British Pashtun (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 sure that the topic is notable. The only sources we have are a single Reuters article and a passing mention in a government report. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United_Kingdom#Ethnic_groups - Insufficient content to warrant a separate article. Davnor (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really notable enough for mention in the main United Kingdom article. Afghans in the United Kingdom and British Pakistanis might be better merge targets. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; those would be better targets for a merge. Davnor (talk)

Merge, probably to Afghans in the United Kingdom. In the event that a lot of information gets uncovered about UK Pashtuns, a separate article can be split off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a bit soft on this. The number of Pashtuns in Britain is substantial (100,000) - the article is worthy of its living. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 15 May 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) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Moshi Moshi EP

Moshi Moshi EP (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 independent notability shown for this limited release ep. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying
wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Digitalism (band) - Lacks sufficient notability to warrant a separate article. Davnor (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Digitalism (band) This was a limited release in Japan. Perhaps make note of it in their discography? Tarheel95 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 May 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) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ulrich Drepper

Ulrich Drepper (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)

Biography that lacks significant independent coverage. The claim that those two papers are well-know is not attributed to a secondary source, but simply the opinion of the wikipedian that wrote that. The rest of the article records spats between him and other FOSS developers, using only primary sources. The lack of biographical information about him is rather telling of the lack of sources.
ping 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ping 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ping 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Appears to fail
WP:BLP. -- Davnor (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose - There are a number of links to him on other Wikipedia pages and this page at least tells what his position is in Linux.Spitzak (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in
reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns mainly passing mentions, such as this or this. Having reviewed the sources in the article, I cannot find any reliable ones. Sources such as Livejournal, a mailing list, and a blog are unacceptable sources for a BLP. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? No article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 13 May 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
talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

DragonLance:The Companions

DragonLance:The Companions (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 concerning characters in a fictional universe who do not meet
WP:NOTABILITY. Content is duplicated in List of Dragonlance characters, which is an appropriate list article on the subject. Claritas (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Important characters I'll admit for the Dragonlance series, and it's a big fantasy series, but the info is already elsewhere, and in more detail. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Heroes of the Lance or List of Dragonlance characters as plausible enough search term. Would have done it myself, had I noticed the overlapping pages. BOZ (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree with Canterbury Tail.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Heroes of the Lance. I'm not certain how many hits this page gets, but surely someone searches for this term, so it best to have a redirect to where the information already is at, and in greater detail. Dream Focus 02:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and create redirect to
Heroes of the Lance. Not enough sources but valid search term. Arskwad (talk) 04:11, 18 May 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 the
snowball clause. –MuZemike 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Joe Francis

Joe_Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Joe Francis' article should be deleted due to general inaccuracies and misleading bias articles that are slanderous and defamatory. Joe Francis' life should not be defined by legal accusations and alleged events where lawsuits are threatened but charges are dropped or dismissed or never even brought forward. Please consider this deletion. Thank you Mantrafilms (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) — Mantrafilms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep, deliberate disruption by corporate role account trying to sanitize article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeletionOf course the article should be "sanitized" who wants an unsanitary article? Unsanitary implies that the article is incorrect, false and misleading. This page should be deleted.AEB1275 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — AEB1275 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep bad nom by possible corporate role account. Joe Francis is notable. editing can fix inaccuracies, and poor weighting. editing can remove incorrect, false and misleading info. If coverage in independent reliable sources focus on legal issues then so should the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ugh, it's not a great article. It seems to have problems with
WP:UNDUE. And the flow is off, somehow. But the subject is certainly notable. As stated, above, editing is how we fix these problems, not deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable as the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" series. Beyond that we're talking about fixable problems with the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, certainly, but this highly infamous subject is certainly noteworthy. I'm certain that there is a near infinitude of writing, both in print and online, devoted to this individual. Evalpor (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to cleanup. I note that the nominator was indef-blocked per
single purpose nominator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Clearly a notable person, issues raised by nominator can be solved without deletion. EuroPride (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per pretty much all of the above. His life is full of controversies, and that's what the article talks about. Dismas|^(talk) 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason presented for nomination. Easily passes
WP:GNG.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:55, 16 May 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. Keep arguments boil down to
talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Link love

Link love (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)

Reasons For Deletion
Link Love is not an official or widely used Search Engine Optimization term. "link love" is another way to describe the process of building backlinks, which is already thoroughly covered in multiple SEO-related articles. This article does not provide any unique content and does not benefit the SEO category at all. Bsanders246 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Link Love is a widely used term - Google it and see for yourself. "Link love" is inadequately handled in other articles. This article provides an encyclopedic article about "link love". If it is deleted then readers who wish to know about "link love" will have no single place to learn about it. Readers should not be forced to wade through several other articles for an incomplete discussion of "link love". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is notable and sufficient reliable information on the subject can be found to write a valid article. The need for editing and expansion is not a reason to delete. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
ping 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Link love" is more than just a concept refered to as part of search engine optimization. It describes an essential aspect of the web. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^{[ping 03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No citations are needed in this discussion. We do not need to cite "the sky is blue". Anybody with any familiarity with the topic understands that "link love" is a common, frequently used term of art. You can Google it and see numerous returns of articles in reliable sources that use the term. [21] Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Jehochman, not everyone is working for SEO company like yourself. "the sky is blue" doesn't require a citation in an article, but "Link love is more than just a concept refered to as part of search engine optimization. It describes an essential aspect of the web" is an assertion that surely does if it were included in the article. Just repeating it here with vague links to searches that don't obviously support the assertion fails short of ping 07:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

By the way, out of the first 10 google books hits, 7 are false positives: [22]. The three that are on topic are two SEO books [23] [24], and a "cyber law" book [25]. Unlike the SEO books, the "law" book only mentions the term parenthetically, and it's in the section on... SEO! I remain unconvinced this topic cannot be handled in the SEO article satisfactorily, or that it has widespread usage outside that context. ping 08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, the term is not used in many other SEO books. Among the top 10 google books results for SEO:
[26] only has one occurrence in a long list of synonyms: ping 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[27]: no occurrence
[28]: no occurrence
[29]: no occurrence
[30]: 10 occurrences
[31]: 3 occurrences (this is a book I've mentioned above)
[32]: no occurrences
[33]: no occurrences
[34]: no occurrences
[35]: no occurrences
As you can see most SEO books don't even use the term. They obviously use the concept, but this is already covered at SEO, ping 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
SEO is on online activity. Most of the reliable literature is published online. You can't prove anything by showing a bunch of random books that don't use a term. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are many articles in Search Engine Land, the most reliable source on this topic, that use "link love". Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ping 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Uh, no. It is the leading publication on the topic. Your assumptions of bad faith look a lot like you're just trying to upset other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your assertion that a dozen books by well-known publishes don't know what they're talking about is even more ridiculous than your feeble ping 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not say they "don't what they're talking about." I said that you cannot prove non-notability be showing a handful of relatively low impact books that don't mention a term. I just showed you a high impact publication that has used the term repeatedly, in multiple articles by multiple authors. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]}

I'm tired of this back and forth over sources that aren't even used in the article. Let me summarize this article, as I read it: Link Love is a synonym for PageRank. Exchanging Link Love is good. Paying for Link Love is bad. Link Love is being deprecated in favor of
ping 18:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
ping 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:LASTWORD. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge any usable content into
talk/_contribs) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That would be a bad idea, because these are not the same at all. The closest related article is
Link popularity might be a good target to redirect this term. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Definition of link love: Link love is a term used in the fields of search engine optimization and blogging to describe the effect that web pages rank better when they have more and higher quality links pointing at them. Google's PageRank algorithm was the first to measure link love and use the resulting value to rank web pages. Link love is a generic term that is analogous to PageRank.

Definition of backlinks: The number of backlinks is one indication of the popularity or importance of that website or page (though other measures, such as PageRank, are likely to be more important).
This would be similar to me creating a article called "Reference Love" to describe how references work in a business environment..
Bsanders246 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 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.
talk) 02:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Birmingham City councillors

List of Birmingham City councillors (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)

Contravention of
WP:IINFO; many red links or links to the wrong article for non-notable councillors; the canonical list is available at http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/members, to which we can link Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine inclussion criteria for a list. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep reading
WP:NOTDIR this seems to be a valid exception to that under section 1 of the criteria there. However no objection to merging into a related article, say Birmingham City Council election results, should such an article ever be created. Valenciano (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that a topic is esoteric is not sufficient cause for removal. Competently constructed and probably useful to specialists down the road. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of crossovers and references in Marvel films

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of crossovers and references in Marvel films

List of crossovers and references in Marvel films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems more fan based than encyclopedic. I am sure what has been said here has been said before in other articles. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been discussed here and not only is this a weak, badly sourced article but there is now a superior article covering this topic from a better angle with the relevant sourcing Marvel Cinematic Universe. This article probably was deletable on its (lack of) merits before but is now simply redundant redundant and, as an orphan and unlikely search term even redirecting seems pointless. (Emperor (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: Even if citations, this article comes off as fancruft to me. Outside it's relevance in any real word area, this information is not really important at this moment. Perhaps if these films series with their respective characters merge at some point in story continuity than this can be added to a film series article. Otherwise, this is a unimportant list article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and poorly referenced. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Albu

Marius Albu (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)

Having only played for the reserves at Steaua, he fails
WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Athlete has not been met (yet) and there's no real independent sources to meet living persons standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:52, 12 May 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 . Marasmusine (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Cobb

Mason Cobb (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:ANYBIO, Non-notable person. Lack of reliable third party sources that specifically mentions the subject. The only relevant source: [36] Regancy42 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per WP:COI issue. Mason Cobb's nickname is supposedly "Neighbor", and a major contributor goes by User: TDNeighborFTW. --Teancum (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

SPeedy Delete agreed. I don't get my own wikipedia page either... This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, as per
talk) 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Getting rather snowy here. Unrefed BLP with no notability. —
talk 15:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shabby_Chic_(brand)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Shabby Chic (brand)

Shabby_Chic_(brand) (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)

Really poorly written article that appears to be more spam than about anything notable. The sources are irrelevant or cite copyright listings which have nothing to do with the piece, the text reads as though it was lifted from a press release, and given that 'shabby chic' is a much more widespread term than within the US, it makes no sense - in the UK 'shabby chic' would mean Cath Kidston and home-made items rather than the furniture produced by an obscure American company. If it could be rewritten in the Wikipedia style, or if the designer is notable enough in their own right then given a page of her own, but right now I see no reason why this should stay.MippyCHEESE (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
G11. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long argumentation of KSatSCB

At the outset, I wish to point out that this article was suggested by Wikipedia editor User: Ukexpat as a result of his reversion of edits to the existing unreferenced article at Shabby chic. See User_talk:KSatSCB#Shabby_chic. I had attempted to edit that article to help differentiate between descriptive uses of the term to reference a style and uses intended to reference the proprietary brand, but User:Ukexpat believed that the brand and the term should be discussed in separate articles. My initial edits were also proposed to correct inaccuracies in the unreferenced Shabby chic article.
Having followed User:Ukexpat’s advice, I notified him/her shortly after publishing the article to request review and commentary. See User_talk:Ukexpat/Archive_17#Shabby_chic_and_Shabby_Chic_.28brand.29. User:Ukexpat was away on holiday, but upon his/her return, he/she advised that detailed comments were forthcoming. See User_talk:KSatSCB#Your_message_on_my_talk_page.
Accordingly, this discussion would not be complete and a consensus could not be reached without some commentary from User:Ukexpat, which I will now request. I submit that if the content of this article is somehow not worthy of a separate entry in Wikipedia, it should at least be incorporated into the existing Shabby chic article in order to eliminate inaccuracies, add much-needed references, and help readers differentiate between the brand and descriptive use of the term. I will now address the merits of the editors’ statements in the nomination for deletion.
Contrary to the unsupported suggestion by User:Armbrust and User:MippyCHEESE, this article is not pure advertising, and provides real substance. The creator of the SHABBY CHIC brand is the well known designer, Rachel Ashwell, who has published at least six books on interior design (“Shabby Chic” (1996), “Rachel Ashwell's Shabby Chic Treasure Hunting and Decorating Guide” (1998), “The Shabby Chic Home” (2000), “The Shabby Chic Gift of Giving” (2001), “Shabby Chic: Sumptuous Settings and Other Lovely Things” (2004), and “Shabby Chic Interiors: My Rooms, Treasures, and Trinkets” (2009), and has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show (see [[37]] among other notable programs. Her brand has achieved much notoriety, including coverage in a recent New York Times article. See [[38]].
The various trademark registrations referenced in the article further support the worldwide notoriety of the brand and contradict the commentary by editor User:MippyCHEESE that it is an “obscure American company” with rights only in the U.S. The company owns registrations for the SHABBY CHIC mark in at least the U.S., European Community, U.K., Australia, Canada, China, France, Hong Kong, India, Indosnesia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Mexico. I suggest, in response to the comments by User:MippyCHEESE, that these sources are relevant because they help the reader to understand that the term when used as a brand has rights associated with it and that the owner of the brand, although based in the U.S., is not limited in its global reach and notoriety.
Next, I note that the Wikipedia guide to deletion Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination specifically states that: “if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject, the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.” I submit that editors User:MippyCHEESE and User:Armbrust have not done so.
In contrast, I have researched the term “Shabby Chic” extensively and have included references to support the statements made, particularly with regard to the origin of the term and its transformation from descriptive use as discussed in Shabby chic to a brand as discussed in this article. I am confident that the new page will be helpful to make users aware of the term and its use.
By way of example, I confirmed the origin of the term by actually obtaining copies of the book “Mlinaric on Decorating” and the London Times articles by Ms. Mirabel Cecil and Ms. Shona Poole, and conducting a search of The World of Interiors, which the corresponding Shabby chic article mistakenly claims to have coined the term. I suggest, in response to the comments by User:MippyCHEESE, that these sources are very relevant, and that they are not referenced in the Shabby chic article.
Editor User:MippyCHEESE mentions another designer in the UK whom he/she claims to be synonymous with the Shabby chic style. I note that the designer’s name was only recently added by an anonymous editor to the Shabby chic article without any supporting references, and although that designer is unknown to me, her website [[39]] makes no reference to the term Shabby chic and nonetheless indicates that her career did not begin until long after Rachel Ashwell became established and associated with “Shabby Chic”, whether as a descriptive term or as a brand. I submit that the inclusion of the designer suggested by User:MippyCHEESE in the Shabby chic article may not be appropriate, especially if Rachel Ashwell is not also discussed in that article.
With regard to the subjective claims about the quality of the writing, I submit that this is not grounds for deletion, and that the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination suggests that such articles should be “merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted”. I disagree that the article is advertising or spam as it does not solicit any business and is not designed to promote a company or individual. Rather the content of the article is informational in nature and helps readers to understand the history and usage of the term as a brand of goods and services as compared with merely descriptive uses of the term. I note that Wikipedia hosts other articles about brands that have been misused descriptively, such as Le Bon Marché, Interview_(magazine), Vogue, Vanity Fair (magazine), Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, Kleenex, Xerox, and Band-Aid. I certainly invite suggestions as to how this article can be improved, but I submit that it should not be deleted. If there is consensus that it should be deleted, then I propose that the contents be merged into a corrected version of the Shabby chic article.
KSatSCB 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Means You

This Means You (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 fails
WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No asserted notability. - BalthCat (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above - no asserted notability. The article creator seems to be producing a lot of these articles that are subsequently deleted. noq (talk) 09:25, 15 May 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 speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by UtherSRG. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZacERP

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

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

I have made the required changes in the article. --Zacerp (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Purely advertisement and doesn't belong to Wikipedia in its current format. Johnny Beta (talk) 09:20, 11 May 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 Obviously not the correct name and content already covered in the article under the correct name
talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Middle East Newsletter

Middle East Newsletter (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)

Is this notable? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a duplicate of the correctly titled
Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

*Comment I have redirected the article to
~~talk) 10:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most popular teams in scottish football

Most popular teams in scottish football (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)

100% OR, all numbers are completely made up and, frankly, bear no resemblance to reality. I think Peterhead F.C. would be quite surprised to learn that they have 30,000 fans given that their average home attendance is around 500..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Big steaming pile of
Wp:HOAX. Also, to use the nom's words, I think Murrayfield would be surprised to learn that Pittodrie's larger than them, since the former's the largest stadium in Scotland and is Hearts' home ground. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually Hearts play at the considerably smaller
Tynecastle Stadium...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And as someone who comes from Edinburgh, I really should have remembered that. (Although they did play there in the UEFA Cup a few years back.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a hoax, but it is a really bad idea for an article. –
Jay 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's a proven fact that... uh... 47 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. Maybe there is a source for the numbers. And if that's true, then maybe there are only thirty-nine popular teams in Scotland. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is inherently subjective, completely unsourced, and a clear case of
WP:OR. It's a clear cut deletion in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Same reasons as the previous version of this nonsense: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish team supporters list, deleted on April 13th. (And next time I'm watching a game with 499 others on a cold evening, I'll while away the time asking myself where the other 28,500 have gone?) AllyD (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everyone knows that the Accies have 80 billion fans, this list if therefore false and should be deleted! Giant Snowman 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ridiculous nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WHAT? Inverness are more popular than the mighty St Johnstone? Get outta here... Ahem, like many people have already said, this is an unsourced piece of original research.
(talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, uncited OR. --Jimbo^[online] 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:OR. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 17 May 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) 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

Beware, Princess Elizabeth (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)

Does not meet
talk) 07:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles do not meet the notability guidelines: the books are not award-winning or the subject of academic discourse, and the only sources used are the novels themselves:

Mary, Bloody Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Patience, Princess Catherine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Merge They are fairly popular young adult books, The ALA and SLJ reviews most of these as a matter of routine (requires registration). The series should be merged into one article (somoe have won awards some havent but all have similar style).--Savonneux (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could merge them into
talk) 09:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge I think one article would be sufficient to describe them all, rather than separate articles. However, it should not be deleted as the books are popular and notable. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Young Royals is quite slim so that will work out fairly well.. - BalthCat (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the article, I do question the logic behind merging, though I have no specific objection to it. If the individual books do not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, I don't understand how the series together does. Gestalt idealism? I think the novels are significant, if not notable, but there should be a consistency of logic at work here. I should think most novels wouldn't meet these criteria interpreted strictly. I will be interested to see how this resolves. Thank you. Alwpoe (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is exactly what it is actually. Some of the books in the series have won awards/been reviewed/etc., some haven't but they are all part of a continuity that is notable.--Savonneux (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm frankly unsure at this point as to whether this particular book meets notability guidelines, but I've added some references and cleaned it up a bit. Does anyone know if this one has won an award? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in sources such as the NZ Herald is adequate to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, that one, and others Google news result easily finds, prove it is notable. Most of those results found require one to pay to view the article, however the summary itself shows it was in fact covered. Dream Focus 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles I've found thus far are pretty sparse, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is pretty specific. I'd feel much better about keeping it if someone found a reference of an award, or a more substantial review. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It will make more sense to have some account of all the books in the article that describes the series; if they remain notable some of them might need stand-alone articles later.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like a good compromise. Fails the guideline about books because there isn't much to say outside of the plot, aside from promo from press releases. But a summary of the series might have more luck. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 13 May 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
talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Young Money

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Young Money

Articles for deletion/Young Money (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Young Money 2: As The Beast Returns (Mixtape)

Articles for deletion/Young Money magazine

Young Money (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)

Obvious violation of
Detailed article already exists and this article has no purpose when the other one is still around. Str8cash (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: The entire discography was on the Young Money Entertainment page while i was nominating this page. Str8cash (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Young Money is not a super group, it's a record label. We Are Young Money was not released by a group called Young Money, it was released by Young Money ENTERTAINMENT. The creation of this article doesn't even make logical sense. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the singles and album would be released by Young Money Entertainment, not Young Money. A group comprising of members from the record label does not mean that it is the same thing as its roster. –
Chase (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It doesn't make sense to have a "supergroup" with the exact same roster of Young Money Ent. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but to assume that they are the same based on your own reasoning is
Chase (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Label and group are not the same. Group is notable per
Chase (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Young Money has never identified itself as a group per se. It is reminiscent of The Re-Up with Eminem. That's not a supergroup, just a compilation album promoting the artists of Shady Records and this Young Money Entertainment debacle is the same. Str8cash (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be providing any sources for ~~this~~ the Young Money information, however. I would like to see a source saying We Are Young Money is intended to be a compilation to promote Young Money's artists. –
Chase (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment It is mostly referred to ithe "Young Money Compilation Album" in several sites and i believe last year in its premature stages, that's also what wikipedia articles called it. A couple of these sources are also endorsed by Lil Wayne himself (i.e. "New Lil Wayne" and "Lil Wayne HQ"), by the way: http://www.sohh.com/2009/11/lil_wayne_nicki_minaj_drakes_young_money.html, http://www.djbooth.net/index/tracks/review/young-money-ft.-lil-wayne-drake-jae-millz-gudda-gudda-mack-maine-every-girl/, http://dimewars.com/HipHopNews/Lil-Wayne---Young-Money-Compilation-Album---We-Are-Young-Money--First-Week-Sales--142-000-Units.aspx?PressReleaseID=a65e5fda-e2ae-40f9-a50e-741abf8b2f0a, http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/album/Young+Money+Compilation/3439723, http://www.ozonemag.com/2009/01/30/lil-wayne-feat-young-money-every-girl/, http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Lil-Wayne-Nicki-Minaj-Drakes-Young-Money-Compilation-Tracklisting-Revealed-PHOTO-1035737.html, http://www.newlilwayne.com/2009/07/rebirth-and-young-money-compilation-to-be-released-on-the-same-day-video/, http://www.lilwaynehq.com/2009/10/13/lilwaynehq-exclusive-interview-with-young-moneys-gudda-gudda/, http://www.youngmoneyhq.com/tag/compilation-album/,Sorry i don't know how to make the link thing, and i actual don't know how the infobox for We Are Young Money isn't that of a compilation album.Str8cash (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and fansites do not meet
Chase (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Half of those aren't blogs or fansites, genius, "New Lil Wayne", "Lil Wayne HQ", and "Young Money HQ" are all official. Str8cash (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Also, those are fansites. The only official Lil Wayne/Young Money websites are lilwayne-online.com and weareyoungmoney.com. –
Chase (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. according to its article,
young money has charted, at #1 in some instances. i think that's notable enough. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Yeah but the point is that there is already an article with that and more on Young Money Entertainment so this page is basically just a copy of that page. Str8cash (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The label and the group are different. The discography should not be at the
Chase (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Chase is right. they're both separate subjects. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ovious Delete this is like if we made a page for the artists that were on
Verse 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

However, with Re-Up, there are reliable sources to verify it is simply a compilation to promote the label's artists. There are no such sources for We Are Young Money. –
Chase (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think i even just gave 9 reliable sources where Young Money is also called a compilation if you look at my comment a few posts back, if you just google "Young Money Compilation" then there are several thousands of articles calling it that before it was called We Are Young Money, even wikipedia called it the Young Money Collaboration Album in its premature stages over a year ago. Face it,
Chase, you got nothin'. Str8cash (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
None of those are reliable sources. Perhaps you should read
Chase (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

As sated in the first Paragraph of the album: We Are Young Money is the first collaboration studio album from Young Money Entertainment. Key Word Young Money Entertainment This will most likly be the only album they will release.
Verse 07:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

So we're going to base the decision of what this is off of an
Chase (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about sources. I ask that editors who wish to retain this article separate from
Young Money and Young Money Entertainment are not the same? Cunard (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Allmusic refers to them as a rap group. May I also ask you if there are any reliable sources that verify that they are the same? The argument works both ways. –
Chase (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you providing the source. I have no position about whether or not
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)? If not, this should not be a separate article. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Young Money the label is notable; they have released albums by notable artists such as Lil Wayne and Drake. –
Chase (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Good points, but BalthCat's argument below is also fairly convincing. I'll have to remain neutral for this one. Cunard (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to substantiate this article. A later redirect might be okay. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Ok, this was a harder call than I was expecting... It is not up to us to decide whether a supergroup is simply a promotional gimmick. Album tracklistings, such as here are clearly not in a v/a compilation format. However the wording of the weareyoungmoney site is even less helpful, as the compilation is titled "We Are Young Money - All Young Money". Since there is only one album so far, a merge (with redirect, or disambiguation) would be acceptable. However to suggest we have the leeway to declare unilaterally that their self-identification as a group invalid or not genuine enough is too much. - BalthCat (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chippy the whittler

Chippy the whittler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems to be just a student film featured at a community college. Doesn't fit CSD. Harland Q Pitt 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete time to make a speedy delete for this type of thing? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable student film.
talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Prize it is asserted to have won is insufficiently notable. - BalthCat (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flourishing Relationship

Flourishing Relationship (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 feels more like a pile of
synthesis than a complete article. The unsourced parts also start to feel more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTHOWTO. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:18, 12 May 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 Barden Corporation. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barden Precision Bearings

Barden Precision Bearings (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 product made by a company whose article I have AfD'ed for failing WP:CORP. The single non-company-published reference is an advertising page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barden Corporation, insofar as I believe the target article ought to be kept. Naturally, if the target is determined by consensus to be deletion material than this vote changes immediately to a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barden Corporation (kept), as per my spicy friend above. The company appears notable, their product is interesting, but not distinct enough from the company to justify separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barden Corporation, the company history and product are not separable and the product does not stand alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.71.66 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barden Corporation

Barden Corporation (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 manufacturer. They sure have an interesting history, but it all comes from the company's own sources. Fails WP:CORP. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNews and GBooks return an awful lot of hits, spanning multiple decades, from publications with names like "The New York Times." I agree that current sourcing in the article is woefully inadequate but I disagree that the company fails
WP:CORP. It's been the subject of substantial coverage in clearly reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (and merge
standards, that's just a matter of research and copyediting. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and merge
Barden Precision Bearings here). Meets definition of notability; added additional sources to meet WP:CORP69.37.209.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep (and merge
Barden Precision Bearings here) valid sources searchable from various sights and articles meeting notability; they made the Norden bombsight work which is quite significant in the history of strategic bombing and the drive toward precision strikesCRTinyDuffy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment I believe 69.37.209.249 and CRTinyDuffy are the same editor. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right, but I don't think it matters all that much. For that matter, perhaps 12.168.71.66 (talk · contribs) too?

WP:NOTAVOTE anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Having an "interesting history", broadly construed, is the very thing that distinguishes corporations worthy of an encyclopedia article above the
average tech business promoting itself on Wikipedia. This business not only has news hits but also Scholar hits and books hits from Google; there seem to be a fair number of in depth secondary sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 13 May 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) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

TERRY GALLERY

TERRY GALLERY (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 speedy. Tagged as spam (G11), this article is about a Korean company for which I am unable to find
third-party reliable sources that are not press releases or sales catalogs. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as speedy contester: on a second look, no sorces, may be a hoax, probably unsalvageble —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighFlyingFish (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; could have been speedied. Kansan (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page has been expanded greatly, no longer like an advertisment, but its still unsourced and does not state notability, I think we should give it a bit of time.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourced now, but still no statement of notability. HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:19, 18 May 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnie berard

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}}.

Nonnie berard (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)

Sigh. I think that its pretty clear that this person is non-notable, but the author of the article feels really strongly that she is, and she maybe doesn't quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion -- she was Crawfish Queen, whatever the heck that is -- so lets go through the process. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Louisiana so I'll explain. Crawfish Queen is a beauty Queen title in Louisiana. One goes though numerous beauty pageants around the state and must come out in first place for up to 20. Then a semi final will began where the finalist all faced against each other in a pageant. It is the highest beauty queen title in Louisiana next to Miss Louisiana. Nonnie is also seen as Louisana's idol, many if not all of the girls residing in Louisiana look up to her as their idol. She's even gained the attention of Rich Music Inc. http://richmusicinc.com/ And she's going to star in a feature film. I think this is more then some other people on here, so I see nothing wrong with the page.--174.69.203.49 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also she is going to be performing on tour at the
New Orleans Arena. I think all these things placed together makes her notble, because I've seen others with much less.--174.69.203.49 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Seems non-notable to me. This is the closest I could find to reliable sourcing, and it's not actual coverage of Nonnie but of the event at issue. The anon above appears to be arguing that Nonnie might be more notable in the future, so perhaps this article can be re-created if the feature film is a great success, or if Rich Music Inc. makes her famous, or what have you. However, in the interim, GNews returns nothing, and GHits gives me blog postings, a Myspace page, and the aforementioned trivial coverage. Ergo, non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Won a non-notable award (see below), no
reliable sources used in the article, Google News returns nothing. Perhaps after the aforementioned tour? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Delete none of the article sources mention her, nothing on Ghits to support notability and per Ginsengbomb.—Sandahl (♀) 04:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's more notable then some others pages I've seen on here. Maybe her agency should be brought in? Also she does have online news articles like this one and more http://www.pxionline.com/news/Media+and+Education/21988 reported 21 hours ago--PurpleLacyLue 04:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleLacyLue (talk • contribs)

Comment You should read
our policy on reliable sourcing. That misses by a wide margin, and it is certainly not an "online news article." It's a submission from her talent agency, AVA Talent, to "PXI Online," apparently (as far as I can tell) an online technology publication that allows people to submit their own news. I'm not sure why someone submitted something about Nonnie's "headling" (sic) tour to a tech publication with coverage of topics like Evaluating WiMax signal quality and "3U PXI Packs a Punch," but... well, there it is.
For anyone too lazy to click the link, the entirety of the "online news article" is as follows: "Nonnie Berard's headling [SIC] tour. Nonnie Berard, famous Louisiana singer is set to embark on her statewide tour though [SIC] Louisiana." That's literally it. And then it's back to covering technology. Hmmmm... ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Completely unreferenced
wp:BLP. No reliable Google search results. No gNews hits at all. The "news article" referenced by PurpleLacyLue is a one sentence press release, managing to be both trivial and unreliable. Her single gets no Google hits. Forthcoming movie gets no hits either. Delete now, recreate it when Miss Berard's notability can be established. » scoops “5x5„ 05:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I did find something through Google Image that suggests she was the winner of a crawfish eating competition. -- WikHead (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly a lot of
WP:MUSICBIO, and the acting stuff is hardly worth a mention 'til it actually happens. -- WikHead (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I guess the page should just be recreated in a few weeks. I'm sure they'll be much more on her once the tour starts. Although, isn't one of the points, having a large following? She does meet that one, but I suppose it's not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.203.49 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Herostratus, Ginsengbomb, Scoops and WikHead. I also can't find anything that indicates that the Breaux Bridge contest is anything but a local contest, especially since the contestants must live in the school district. Indeed, the Ville Platte Gazette specifically lists it as a "local festival" title, not a state-wide title, see this link. She has a total 26 GHits, 0 GNews hits and only 17 GImage hits. Non-notable local pagent winner. (GregJackP (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me say this, I am from Shreveport, Louisiana, and the competition was held here in Independence Stadium, so unless the title went from local to statewide in the past 2 years, GregJackP and Ville Platte Gazette (Whatever and wherever that is) are incorrect. Also I am the head of her fan club and I don't think a "local" anything would have 100s of fans across the state, just take a look on Twitter and you can easily find at least 75 fan sites for her. Next, I had no idea that she was this un publicized on the internet news, this is most likely because she can't release her songs on the internet or out of state yet, due to Agency restrictions. Let me suggest an idea we all can be happy with. Put a verifiability question tag on the page and give it a 30 day wavier, that will be enough time for her tour to start and get much more news head lines. and I will see to it that all of her fans start publicizing her outside of just fan sites.--PurpleLacyLue 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleLacyLue (talk • contribs)

Comment - First, personal knowledge is not used by Wikipedia, second, if it is not notable now, you can re-introduce if and when she does become notable. If it is not notable now, it needs to be deleted now. GregJackP (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I would like to see a Crawfish Queen in Wikipedia, Ms. Berard doesn't meet the notability standards of
WP:BIO at this point in her career. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment So after the tour sets and she gets at least one headline, the page can be recreated? Or do I wait until the filming for her movie starts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleLacyLue (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither the tour nor the filming confer
verifiable coverage in secondary sources does. If she gets a few headlines (technically, one headline article in a reliable publication is insufficient, "multiple" is required) then sure, re-create the article. There are never any guarantees, but if a subject is well-covered in reliable sources the odds of an article on that subject being deleted are very slim. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Herostratus, also decided to be pedantic and gather a few more sources to plug any uncertainties about this.

I tried to find some additional info to allow any claims notability to be properly evaluated. The only verifiable claim made by the article is about her title as the 2008 Crawfish Queen [40], though all sources cite it as a local event rather than one of statewide importance, most importantly, the official Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival website, which specifies that the pageant is exclusive to the Breaux Bridge High School District area.

The author also seems to be willfully attempting to misrepresent the importance of the awarded title. There are many such titles at this level, the Crawfish Queen being only one of almost 100 distinct local festival queens of the Louisiana Association of Fairs and Festivals (LAFF), that is, there is at most one unique queen chosen by each participating festival. From this pool of festival queens, a Queen of Queens is chosen. This is the highest pageant-related honor bestowed by the LAFF. Concerning her duration of her reign, the article doesn't specify, though its disputed primary source states that she still holds the title to this day, when she in fact only possessed the title for 2008, and her throne has since been usurped by Tiffany Paige Dore. LAFF Pageants are not in any way related to Miss Louisiana or Miss Louisiana USA. Miss Louisiana candidates are drawn from the winners of a different set of pageants and Miss Louisiana USA pageants do not have a preliminary set of pageants in order to qualify. Therefore, to state that the Crawfish Queen is the highest ranking title after Miss Louisiana is obviously far from correct.

As far as the personal account of attending the competition, sources say that the Crawfish Queen pageant was held at a Hilton Hotel and Towers in Lafayette, LA -- not the (more notable?) Independence Stadium of Shreveport, LA.

While it is technically possibly to set a "national record" for something exclusive to your hometown, the terminology is intentionally misleading. Also, no sources describe her age as unusual in any way for the competition. If considering what other unspecified records could have been broken with respect to other pageants, Logan Travis won Miss Louisiana Teen USA in 2007 at 15, and nationally, Jolene Fulkner won Miss California Teen USA in 1991 at 14.

Regarding the claim to notability based on Twitter friend count, some suggest that ratio of followers to those followed may be a better measure of notability. By this measure, her low ratio (0.45:1) indicates that, not even by Twitter standards, is she likely to be considered notable (not that the friend list is notably large in absolute terms either). Then again, the interpretation of these results is fairly arbitrary, and is not a suitable way to make a claim of notability in the first place.

[...] My [talent] agency created a wiki for me---> [shortened link to Nonnie Berard Wikipedia article] Simply overwhelmed. ;w;

Nonnie Berard (Twitter), via tweet, at 12:51 AM May 10th

And on top of every thing else, it seems
sockpuppetting is going on here... RamenFueled (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete this
COI editor(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - in addition to the arguments above, allow me to add that the article's
WP:NOTMYSPACE.DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Firstly, Nonnie could have easily thought it was her agency, most people think that wikipedia can only be edited by big name people. Secondly, [WP:NOTMYSPACE]] has no reference here. The page isn't set up like a social network page. It is just informative information. Lastly, the pages were speedily deleted without cause. I have seen at least a handful of BIO on here with people that have done far less amazing things then Nonnie. P.S I don't like Orange Mike calling me and the rest of the Nonnie fans hyperactive.--PurpleLacyLue 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleLacyLue (talk • contribs)

Please see
wp:otherstuffexists. If you find biographies of people with less notability than Miss Berard, nominate them for deletion. Also, things very rarely get deleted without cause, especially not repeatedly. That you don't like the reason does not render it invalid, especially when you have a clear conflict of interest. » scoops “5x5„ 03:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Alright, since this is going nowhere, I'm going to start a petition here to get the page to stay. Hopefully I'll be able to get Governor Bobby Jindal to sign it in the end. --174.69.203.49 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. For one thing, we ignore petitions here, even if they're signed by Barack Obama. For another, if the subject does not meet our notability guidelines, we don't keep the article. Finally, if indeed Ms. Berard doesn't meet our notability guidelines, I doubt that your petition will be getting a lot of legit signatures. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason I highly doubt you guys have the power to override the President. That's what I've been trying to get across this whole time. She should meet notability standards. She's a Louisiana idol. So many young girls look up to her and see her as a role model across the state. But that doesn't account for notability by your standards. If can get at least half of her fans around the state along with Governor Jindal to sign, I doubt we'll be having anymore problems with keeping the page.--174.69.203.49 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity does not equal notability. Please read
reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is not rocket surgery. » scoops “5x5„ 04:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I was referring to the statement about the amount of petition signatures, that could be acquired.--174.69.203.49 (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So was I. The number of signatures you can or cannot get is irrelevant. A petition will not make Miss Berard pass our notability standard. Significant, reliable, independent coverage will. » scoops “5x5„ 04:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you doubt that we have the authority to override the president. Actually, we do. Wikipedia is run by a private non-profit corporation, and as such, as long as the site abides by US laws, no one, not even the President, can tell us what to do. Things would be different if Wikipedia were a government site, but it's not. As an aside, I doubt that you'll be able to get Governor Jindal involved if Berard just doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Bottom line, if you want the article kept, there's one way and one way only to do it, and that's to show us that Berard meets at least one of the notability guidelies laid out either at
WP:MUSIC. Failing that, there's quite simply nothing you can do to get the article kept. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It doesn't really add to the debate, but this is an amusing development with respect to my previous comment regarding notability and Twitter: Nonnie's ratio on Twitter over (a short span of) time. RamenFueled (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's amusing how you misunderstood what I meant about fan twitters. I was talking about Twitters that are dedicated to her, not the amount of people that follow her. Exs. http://twitter.com/NonnieRocks01 , http://twitter.com/VerifyNonnie , http://twitter.com/Nonnieamazing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.203.49 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a Twitter account to "Verify" Nonnie? Twitter is not a verifiable or reliable source, but I'm impressed with the effort you are giving to try and keep the article. GregJackP (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been an educational exercise, to be sure. I vote to delete, per the patiently argued reasons already given. The subject is non-notable, though clearly much-beloved in her community. Rudybowwow (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and we couldn't care less about any petitions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Vincent

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}}.

Edward A. Vincent (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. Ordinary surveyor whose name is mentioned only peripherally in connection with a few surveys by outside sources. Sounds pretty much like someone's ancestor (genealogy) rather than real notability. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has appropriate period (19th century) references. The fact that he receives mention in contemporary media as well, although not used in the article, [41] speaks to his notability as does the building of a replica of his original design of the Atlanta Depot for the Stone Mountain Park Depot in 1987. Given the level of interest in anything related to the Civil War and the antebellum South in particular, I believe readers may well be interested in him. (He mapped both the cities of Atlanta and Savannah prior to Sherman's March through Georgia, both of which survive. [42]) Soapbox: I know this isn't the place but this is what is wrong with wikipedia. If it can't be click click seen, it is likely to be gone. Some ace detective/ Civil War buff has gone to a tremendous amount of effort tracking down sources to chronicle an amazing historical individual (He died at age 30!) for wikipedia and it's about to be nixed. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."[43] Yeah right. Eudemis (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. The Union Depot was probably the most significant antebellum building in Atlanta, and one of the most significant in the South when Sherman burned the place down. It was notable enough to be rebuilt in replica He is well-documented in the media of the time, and was clearly notable in 1853 for multiple reasons in several places. His documentation of antebellum Atlanta and Savannah is a significant historical resource and reference. Acroterion _(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am the author of this article and have spent some time reading over the notability page. To better satisfy those requirements, I have added additional sources. I plan to add the AJC article referenced by Eudemis once I can see the actual newspaper. Submitting this information to Wikipedia is part of a longer process that involves writing a paper about him in my graduate studies and submitting a substantial paper about him to the Georgia Historical Quarterly for peer reviewed publication. I think adding information about the re-purposing of his maps during the Civil War, as well as the replica at Stone Mountain, will make for a better article. Vincent is a difficult character to get to know because his family is unknown, he had no children, and his life was cut short right at the beginning of his career. He was a notable figure in Georgia from 1852 to 1854 and scholars have returned to his work repeatedly over the last 100 years. Paul K. Graham (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vincent's work, though brief, is important to early Atlanta and Savannah history, and his life is difficult to research. This is an important entry. At this point, it seems that there is more to come, and I, for one, would like to know what it is. I vote to keep this entry. Deborah E. Harvey, 7 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharvey8 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is unbiased and has direct relevance to the history of the antebellum South. It allows others interested in the Civil War history of Georgia to add sources that may otherwise lack context. The author has gone to great lengths to provide that context and I hope this will inspire more research on historical figures whose contributions have gone unnoticed. Chapmanmb (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)MChapman[reply]

Keep I just found this page from a Google search for Edward A Vincent, I had seen his name on a directory of maps at the archives.gov and wanted to determine if he was the cartographer on a map I had found in College Park back in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.134.150 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The extensive research done on Vincent is of great importance to anyone doing research on the early development of Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah. I am also looking forward to seeing what future research on Vincent will uncover. Marycatharine (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

AGF Keep. Of course, we cannot check online for references that are more than 100 years old, but the article does assert that such sources do exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: While I'm concerned that two of the above might be SPAs, I would like to assume Acroterion knows what
WP:PAPER, and keep the article pending further sources. Coincidentally, I just read about Sherman's March last night! (I'm Canadian, so it's less likely than it might sound.) - BalthCat (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, Vincent's depot was the inspiration for the entrance to the Mall of Georgia. Paul K. Graham (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm quite comfortable with the simple fact that the person is remembered, although locally (his building has been recreated near
East of Borschov (talk) 06:25, 11 May 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 Forget this ridiculous discussion no point in arguing; withdrawn by nominator;
moral♪♫ 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

10 May 2010 Iraq attacks

10 May 2010 Iraq attacks (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)

Per
moral♪♫ 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Due to NOTNEWS Terinjokes (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a significant set of notable attacks widely reported in RS. see
WP:N/CA--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. 100 dead is clearly significant and notable. Early reporting clearly indicates its political significance. [44] --
Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Just because something is news doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Events that result in a significant number of deaths are almost always worthy of inclusion, and this is no exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment — Since this story is still breaking, how can the information in the source be considered "reliable"? If the source's info is still preliminary, then this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia... yet. In a few days, after the facts have solidified, yes. Now? No, as per
Wikipedia:N/CA#Notability_of_criminal_acts. Something can't be deemed notable until we actually know what happened:P. Until we know what occurred, no judgment can be made, and thus the article shouldn't exist. Gopher65_talk 03:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Your argument amounts to little more than semantic games. Do you honestly believe that if say the president was assassinated that we shouldn't have an article containing what we do know right away because information will change? Heck, people still debate the "real truth" about nearly every topic on the encyclopedia, so I guess we shouldn't have any info at all since truth might change? Plus the AfD will last 7 days if not closed early, so your entire "Wait a few days" point is moot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of Wikipedia- as details emerge, they can be added and changed- we're not bound by what we've already written. There's a difference between "news" and "recent"- the ability to be able to cover current events in their context as they unfold is what sets Wikipedia apart both from news sites and from other encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, that very unreliablity is what sets us apart from other encyclopedias. They have the (un)advantage of covering topics that are... historical, for lack of a better term. Since we're insisting on covering topics that are so new that even CNN and Fox aren't stooping to provide details that are still highly speculative, we're losing the aura of reliability that an encyclopedia normally engenders. This is the very reason why the WMF spun off a news site from Wikipedia: to keep Wikipedia respectable, and far away from the ups and downs of both speculative journalism and yellow journalism. Gopher65_talk 03:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per nom actually! Wikipedia isn't a news site, and this isn't a news article- it provides encyclopaedic coverage of a series of horrific but notable events and that will form a significant part of the history of Iraq. Just being recent doesn't make it unencyclopaedic and this is where WP and Wikinews can both support each other and differ from each other at the same time in that WN is a news site and so provides detailed information that, in the long term, would not be notable in an encyclopaedia article and yet the WP article can deal with the subject in the context of the Iraq war and the insurgency. It isn't redundant to the WN article nor is is the WN article redundant to this- it's a question of focus. I hope this doesn't have to run the whole 7 days because it would be nice to get it up on the Main Page before it's too old. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is this is still new and the facts aren't completely "set-in-stone" one might say. I don't understand why we would need an article at the moment an event occurs. Ideally, when a person dies, the death date is placed and details of his or her death should not be added until any details are confirmed, or "set-in-stone." The same should go for events such as this. Wait 1 to 2 days before writing an article so the facts are completely verifiable.
moral♪♫ 03:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I'm probably a biased party to this discussion, as I'm a regular at Wikinews (where articles like this are generally considered just duplication of effort, since you're basically doing the same thing Wikinews is doing - updating content as it happens). I'm personally of the opinion that Wikipedia should not create articles on things immediately as they happen, but allow some time to pass in order to reflect on the issue better - to determine if it really is notable after all, and to be able to cover it from a historical perspective, which is very difficult to do when things are in a state of flux. The way I look at it, an encyclopedia should only have *stable* information - otherwise, it ceases to become an encyclopedia, and goes more in the realm of a news source. I don't feel I'm sufficiently active to vote here, so I won't, but just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, if I agreed with that, that wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion- deleting something only to re-create it in a day or 2 is
unnecessarily bureaucratic. Again, just because something is recent doesn't mean it's not notable- would you advocate waiting a day or two before putting the results of the UK general election up on WP? Or perhaps we should wait a day or two before adding information about a SCOTUS nomination to the nominee's article? Both would be considered utterly daft, so why should this be different? Also, for the record, as an occasional WN contributor myself, I have the utmost respect for WN, but this article would (if it hadn't been nominated for deletion while only a few hours old) cover the event in the wider context that a news service doesn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 11 May 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 the whole shebang with leave to speedy renominate any of these articles individually. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Logue

Since there are some good faith edits being made to progressively improve these articles I've decided to withdraw all nominated articles at this time. They can always be revisited later if nobody makes a serious attempt to assert notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alison Logue (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 a female player in a local soccer team. While the team may be notable, the subject fails
WP:GNG. She may have represented the team overseas once, six years ago, but this seems to be her only claim to fame. AussieLegend (talk
) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. All of these players play for the same club. Some have played for only a single season and most have not played overseas. None have received significant coverage anywhere:[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

~~Sanna Frostevall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Gema Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Gemma O'Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Hannah Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Harmonie Attwill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Nicole Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Kirstyn Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Rhali Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

~~Libby Sharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Leia Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Taleah Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Emily van Egmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

~~Amber Neilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Withdrawn (see below) --AussieLegend (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kate Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Withdrawn (see below) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Joanne Peters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Withdrawn (see below) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--AussieLegend (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw the nominations for
WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Amber Neilson has now been withdrawn. I'm satisfied that she now meets GNG after constructive edits to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These players should meet
WP:ATHLETE through appearances in a national professional league. A quick search for references that this is a professional league - "Australian professional women's soccer league", "continue to develop at a professional level", "professionally administered and professionally run competition". Nominating players like Kate Gill and Joanne Peters who have played 50+ and 100+ games at a senior international level respectively shows a lack of checking the articles closely. Camw (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ATHLETE actually says "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Are all of these players fully professional, or do they have day jobs? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know, do you have a reliable source that contradicts these players being professional? Camw (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to prove that.
WP:ATHLETE. In fact, there's little in the articles of anything. There's certainly no significant coverage as required by GNG. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I've posted a number of links above that state the league is professional and plenty of the players have significant coverage Emily Van Egmond as one example. Camw (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in a professional league is not evidence of being fully professional as is required by
WP:ATHLETE. You can play football one day a week and get paid but that doesn't make you fully professional. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:Athlete says that the level of competition needs to be fully professional, if the sources say the competition is professional, the people competing in it meet the criteria. You'll find players in the majority of professional sporting competitions in the world that will have jobs other than playing sport but that doesn't make everyone in the competition suddenly fail WP:Athlete. The W-League is listed as a fully professional league by the WP:WikiProject Football so it meets the criteria of the community that actually works on these kind of articles. Plenty of these players have news articles with some level of coverage based on doing a simple Google search, it's unreasonable to expect people to do this for 17 people for this discussion when you obviously didn't do it before nominating the articles without even checking if they had made a full international appearance which would have them easily meet WP:Athlete. Camw (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, which is that I don't believe that these players have competed at a fully professional level. This means that they fail
WP:GNG. I dd in fact do some searching before nominating and saw results such as Stacy Day. Of those that do have some coverage, it's not significant enough to confirm that they're competing at a fully professional level. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you saying that you believe that even the players that have played in senior international games are not notable? Camw (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kate Gill, Amber Neilson and Joanne Peters unambiguously meet
WP:ATHLETE by virtue of playing international football. Hack (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Emily Van Egmond has made an international appearance as well - there may be others in the list also.
WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed on these nominations. Camw (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge: (Comment: If the team "might be notable", why not recommend a merge with redirects instead of mass deletion? This could have been handled differently, without alienating the editor(s).) Keep or merge based on Camw's assertion that the league is fully professional as per WikiProject Football. - BalthCat (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I didn't think a merge would be supported. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no value in deleting all those articles outright, when merging current members - including some expanded details and photography - into the team article is viable. BalthCat (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The practice at the Football Wikiproject has been that players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional.

Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.

Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).

Hack (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going with the stance that just because these are women does not make their professionalism any less notable than if men were playing. I say let collaboration roll and build the articles up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Camw has demonstrated, these players have all played in a fully-pro league, therefore meeting
WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all - per the links posted by Camw. These players all meet
WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all who have not played for Australia. AussieLegend has this spot on. Just because a league is "professionally run" does not mean it is fully professional. Do W-League players earn a living from the W-League? No. So it is not fully professional. - Mkativerata Procedural withdraw to allow this to be speedily closed. I remain of the view that an athlete who merely plays in the
Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I don't believe that "rate of pay" should be an indicator. For example, from about 1920 through 1950, most players in the National Football League had second jobs, as did a lot of professional baseball players. Further, the financial success or failure of the league does not necessarily have impact on its notability--such as the United States Football League from the 1980s.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rate of pay is one of the most determinative factors that distinguishes semi-professional from fully professional. Especially for leagues that exist now, as opposed to 70 years ago.
Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's true, then 1) The NFL was a "semi-pro" league until about 1972, and 2) What exactly would be the "threshhold" of pay that would qualify for "fully-professional" ?
WP:BIG covers this as an "arbitrary quantity" in the essay "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions"--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, there is a big difference between sport decades ago and sport now. If you can't earn a living out of a sport in the western world in the 21st century it ain't fully professional. That's what fully professional means, it's no arbitrary standard. Anything else is semi-professional. God help us if
Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"A living" is an arbitrary standard. Plenty of sports leagues have players that have/need second jobs (Major League Soccer - [45], National Rugby League - [46] for a start) but you'd be laughed out of the AfD if you tried to nominate players in those leagues. I don't see what is so terrible about having verifiable and referenced articles about people playing in a televised (drawing 100,000+ viewers for some matches according to ratings), national top level competition. Camw (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a problem? In my view, because the benefit of having very brief and uninformative stubs about marginally notable people is outweighed by the problems caused when there's no-one to update them and upholding the community's views on athletes. But I'm certainly not pretending that you're not entitled to disagree with that. By the way, on what basis is this a reliable source? --
Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Understood. Ideally articles wouldn't be stubs indefinitely, but I know that some will be unlikely to go any further. I don't think that means they should all be deleted as I believe the positives outweigh the negatives, but I accept that it's an issue that is going to have people on both sides. I still don't think that this mass nomination by AL was the best way to go about it, but what is done is done. Edit: The site has a track record over a number of years of keeping accurate statistics based on official match reports, if it isn't considered reliable enough then it can easily be replaced with the official club site profiles usually linked in the external link section (though these can be problematic when players move between clubs). Camw (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as they all appear to meet
WP:ATHLETE, at least according to Camw's source. This could of course change if said guideline is tightened at some point in the future. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete most as not meeting WP:GNG guidelines. I don't believe the
WP:BEFORE would have saved a certain amount of leg-work for reviewing contributors. Live and learn though, eh?--ClubOranje^T 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) -- (updated --ClubOranje^T 02:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC))[reply
]

I've withdrawn the nominations for
original research. I really can't believe that people would want to keep them this way. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles being of "exceptionally poor quality" is not a reason to delete. The player profile page has obviously changed, as pages on the internet do from time to time, there are plenty of sources that show she has played in full international games and would meet WP:Athlete. Here are three sources that constitute significant coverage for Emily van Egmond - [48] [49] and a broken link, but shows a story was published, stories not being accessible online isn't relevant. Camw (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was a reason for deletion. It was just an observation but, if we follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and remove the uncited information and information that appears to be OR, there would be little content in most of these articles. Regarding the broken link you've provided, without content to verify, it's useless. Biographical articles require high quality sources. That doesn't qualify. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other two articles and the international appearance are fine for notability regardless of any other source qualifying. Camw (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't they in the article? Over 10,000 bytes have been added to this page by those supporting retention of these poorly sourced articles and yet, there has been absolutely no attempt to improve 16 of the 18 articles nominated. If these individuals really were notable then the articles should be brimming with citations demonstrating that by now. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You drag people here without checking for sources on players with 100+ international appearances and wonder why they aren't off doing more productive things that would actually improve the encyclopedia? You are the one that is so concerned about the poor quality, add them yourself. Camw (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these articles hadn't been created there would have been no need to raise this nomination. The fault lies squarely with the people who have created or added to these articles and haven't followed policy. Biographical articles require high quality sources and notability needs to be demonstrated. That hasn't been done here. I have no desire to add citations because I don't think the subjects are notable. They don't meet GNG (2 citations is not "significant" coverage), they aren't fully professional as required by
WP:FOOTBALL. I have checked several of the sources used and they really don't support the notability requirements. Mere mention as a member of a team is not "significant". Nor is a couple of articles in the same newspaper. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WABBITSEASON are coming to mind...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
To be fair, nominating non-qualifying articles for deletion is fixing it.--ClubOranjeT 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden also lies on those who feel the need to whip out the scalpel every time something looks like it might only be marginally notable. Read
WP:ATD for some suggestions on what to do next time instead. - BalthCat (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What part of "having reviewed the sources I don't consider them notable" is so hard to understand.[50][51][52][53]
WP:ATD is only useful when the subjects are notable. I don't believe they are, which is why I nominated them, after checking sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I still believe a call to merge would have been more appropriate, and better received. (Then there's your snarky edit summaries that I just noticed...) - BalthCat (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's done is done. Try to concentrate on what is here now. As for the edit summary, given that I had said it several times in clear English I find it incredibly amazing that comments are still being made. If I wasn't asssuming good faith I might think it's being done to push the discussion off track because people can';t demonstrate the notability of the nominated articles with citations from high quality reliable sources. The edit summary was entirely valid and I would direct you to
WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:47, 15 May 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) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

FutureSinhala

FutureSinhala (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 evidence that this software is
notable. Google search results in 113 hits, 22 "unique". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not a Software but a concept for software to be developed. All software developers developing natural language software in Sri Lanka must make their software compatible with the concept to get the aproval of ICTA Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this standard is currently notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. At the very least, the rule laid out by 165.228.99.233 should be solidly referenced. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--please read http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/Presidential_Circular_on_Sinhala_Unicode.pdf and http://www.locallanguages.lk/node/95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Clearly states the rule http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/UNICODE_CIRCULAR_3.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference states the rule only as an instruction to be followed by government employees. As such, it can only be regarded as an internal memo. If non-government developers read this circular and then throw it in the garbage as something nearly all of them intend to ignore, then the circular cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reliable reference to establish notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are not aware of the influence the government of Sri Lanka holds on these matters. Anyway it is upto you and your original statement said it should be refrenced and has been done. Wiping off your prejudisim about the topic though is beyond me. As there is no one qualified or informed enough to judge on the issue here this will be the last objection I make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say, clearly you are not aware of the influence the government, you are stating the very reason why we have adopted a policy on
verifiability. If the Sri Lankan government influence is as strong as you claim on such matters, the available outside evidence of such an influence shouldn't be that hard to find. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable. An internal memo isn't exactly convincing me otherwise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:16, 11 May 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) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Renincarnated (song)

Renincarnated (song) (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 song, non-charting single; no sources. Fails
WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge: Merge into album article. - BalthCat (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 May 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XXXO

XXXO (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 as it does not have a firm release date, supporting album, is a stub, has not charted, nor recieved extensive awards or independent coverage. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Edited since AfD'd. - BalthCat (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Contrary to what the nominator said, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for expansion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Chase (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It's the first single from the album, it has a cover, it has been released...what more could you want? Just because a song has not yet charted is no reason for it to be deleted or redirected. Of course if it has just been released it has not charted, do you want a debut at #1 on the first day it's released? More so, how can you expect for a song just released to be given awards? A simple Google News search shows 43 results, which I would call extensive independent coverage. Even if this is somehow redirected, it would just be created again in a couple of days. I see no reason for action to take place. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been released, contrary to what the nom states, will almost certainly chart, and already has a ton of independent reliable coverage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been released, and has enough
RS coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. decltype (talk) 19:25, 12 May 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) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Krushna Abhishek

Krushna Abhishek (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)

BLP prod contested with the addition of a few sources, all of which are directories such as IMDB. Indian actor, no sign of actual notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. moɳo 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google News seems to have some stuff on this person, but I couldn't find anything non-trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the IMDB listing seems to suggest all roles are fairly small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these search results seem to be more-than-trivial, and the actor's career does seem to push at
WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 13 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minmae

Minmae (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
notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - There are two decent sources, but one is really about Brooks and not the band. Otherwise everything else I found was record release notices and event listings. Try again when a few more
reliable sources exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Per nom. moɳo 00:34, 11 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Qaiser Fatmi

M. Qaiser Fatmi (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)

Biography of an academic with no evidence of passing
biographies of living persons. David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scopus shows 8 published papers, but the citations are 11, 9 , 6, 2, Not yet notable. This was listed as a BLP prod, but his basic accomplishments were easily verifiable--it's just that they aren't enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Not enough to survive AfD; enough to survive BLP prod. moɳo 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 11 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Vanderburg

Cyrus Vanderburg (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail
WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no trace of the books: Burnstein, M (1967). "Cyrus Vanderburg: A True Czech Hero" Random House or Vanderburg, C, Vanderburg, E. (1976). "The Way I See It: Letters from Cyrus" New Zion Press. I suspect a hoax. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

n. moɳo 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I am
hardly notable. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It is true that we always should assume good faith when responding to the opinions voiced by others in the nomination process, including the nomination itself, and we should always be careful before labeling a person as being a purveyor of lies. However,
WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when it comes to any statement offered as fact, and there is nothing uncivil about expressing suspicion of dubious contributions to an encyclopedia, so it's OK if you want to say that you're skeptical. The negative return from the Google search, combined with the fact that this is a contribution from what is called an "SPA" (single purpose account), is enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that a real published book would have no Google hits, much less two different ublished books on the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a bad attempt at a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. I loved the titles for the made-up sources-- A True Czech Hero and The Way I See It. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 11 May 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 Nomination withdrawn with leave to speedy renominate. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per
WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The Era (album)

The Era (album) (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 album songlist has yet to be officially announced at
Blogspot post (i.e. a blog entry), that is based on rumour information obtained from Chinese BBS forums. The aformentioned blog website also claimed ([55]) to have earlier predicted (incorrectly) the name of Jay Chou's 2010 album (as "Cross 十字勳章 (Shi Zi Xun Zhang)"), along with song names and lyrics back in April, which turned out to be a hoax made by a child on a Chinese forum back in November last year, and also claimed to have the "leaked versions" of the hoax songs, which are obviously not by Jay Chou, but rather a Shanzhai
imposter fan.
A google search in Chinese for "周杰倫跨時代专辑歌名" gives nothing but either speculative news or forum posts; a google search in English leads to an even bigger dead end. All that is absolutely, concretely confirmed (being announced officially by JVR Music) is the name of the album and the release date.
(Also possibly of interest: Hardcore fan blog post from 2009: OMGZ!!! New 2009 Jay Chou album called CROSS!!!LOLOLOLOL; "News" that claims Jay Chou's album will be called "Cross"; Tianya forum post made in 2009 regarding the "Cross" hoax; Baidu Tieba post made not that long ago, still believing that the new album will be called "Cross"; Google cache of a Baidu Zhidao post made back in 2009, now deleted, regarding Jay's 2009 Album "Cross", which never existed)
And finally,
WP:CRYSTALBALL still is an issue, even though the album itself will be released in 10 days time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional sources come out. • ɔ ʃ → 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Wait until it's released. This really needs someone au fait with Mandarin(?) to look at the sources, but there are shops listing this as released in 7 days time. If this release date is accepted as accurate, further discussion now would seem to be a complete waste of time. If the release date proves to be wrong, or if it gets no coverage after its release (which seems unlikely) then another AFD may be called for.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album to be released tomorrow; accepting retail website as enough verification in good faith, for now. Withdraw nomination. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:03, 17 May 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and yes I did notice that someone !voted "keep" twice) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindbergh Educational Center

Lindbergh Educational Center (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 adult/ community education center, no assertion of notability, no sources, google turns up nothing other than the mere fact that they exist. GED prep centers and the like have no inherent notability, if schools weren't excluded from CSD, I'd tag A7.
says you, says two 03:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of news coverage; I added three citations to the article but there are many more. Sure they're all local, but so is the news coverage of most high schools - and high schools are generally considered to be notable. BTW this school is not a "GED prep center"; it offers actual high school diplomas and adult education classes as well as the GED. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources, yes but I have to disagree on the assertion that there's plenty of significant coverage:
The business programs link is a directory entry - this helps meet the threshold for
verifiability
but isn't coverage at all, let alone significant.

The school is mentioned in the RecordNet article but not really discussed, its more about a graduate himself.

The Manteca Bulletin article discusses budget problems in the school district, not specifically L.E.C.

The Manteca School general plan is a first-party source.

The article about students meeting the manga artist is a press-release by the school district and thus also first-party.

Mentions in other news-sources, press-releases, and master plans help expand an article by providing additional facts and insights, but these don't meet the criteria of being
says you, says two 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Six additional
Cisco Systems and another from a non-profit group in Lynnwood, Washington have been introduced into the article tonight along with two citations to support the school has won an award. Additionally, present citation #12 known as the San Joaquin 1999 Training Directory contains many pages of information concerning the courses taught. Now that I think of it, I will change my vote to Strong Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep the Sacremento Bee story is a significant reference, appears to be primarily about the school, and is not a press release. It's by a named staff writer of a reputable newspaper. I was rather skeptical of this until I read that reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep - The subject has received
verifiable through its references and has won an award as documented by two citations. --Morenooso (talk) 07:16, 11 May 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) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Vinismo

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}}.

Vinismo (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. Very thinly-sourced, one local media reference. I'm not sure this is terribly notable but would be glad to be proven wrong. — e. ripley\^talk 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo is becoming a recognized and reliable site for information about wines, a topic near and dear to many Wikipedians' hearts. There are not very many non-commercial sites to which one can refer on this topic. In fact at least 4 current Wikipedia pages link to Vinismo.com as sources for their content. Please see Sauvignon blanc, Mendoza Province, Yarra Valley and Marlborough Region. I had hoped that it would be possible to improve many other wine-related pages by having a {vinismo]] page here in Wikipedia.
talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)q[reply
]

Vinismo is notable for being a Open Content wine guide. Beyond the merits of its content and its usefulness as a source for Wikipedia, it has value as a proof-of-concept for authoritative, collaborative, copyleft content. Maj (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prior to this vote, last edit was in 2007. — e. ripley\^talk 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support having a page about Vinismo here on Wikipedia. It is a very good site and I use it frequently. I like to know more about it. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Albert Albertmost (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note,
Meatpuppets are discouraged here. — e. ripley\^talk 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Vinismo is an OPEN and non-commercial wine resource. World famous? No, not yet. --ron k jeffries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.71 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being the only open-content wine guide out there, Vinismo is notable specifically because it's the right place for many wiki articles about wine that don't belong on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide I disagree with deleting this article. Zach (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. — e. ripley\^talk 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about. Zach (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, in fact; take a look at WP:Canvassing. In this case it's inappropriate because someone is clearly recruiting people to come to this page to influence the vote tally toward the "keep" side. These AFD debates are supposed to be composed mostly of neutral parties evaluating an article on its merits. That being said, it's mostly just important to note for the closing admin. — e. ripley\^talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo is notable project and I'm adding a couple more references to support this claim. Its important free culture resource, just like some other wikis out there that also provide a wealth of knowledge. Jon Phillips (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

undefined — No one has voted on this yet... moɳo 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References meet our guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Montreal Gazette source, predating nomination. - BalthCat (talk) 06:09, 11 May 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. Consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage to keep this article.
talk) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Rachor

Jeff Rachor (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 person is a business executive whose notability is not expressed in this article. A Google search turns up press releases about his appointment to various high positions in notable companies and sometimes about good but unspecified business decisions he has made.
I would propose a merge, but being a former CEO of a notable company may not be worth merging to other articles, especially when lists of former employee lists are not usually normal for articles like those.
I do not doubt that this person is able in his field; I just see no evidence to support the idea that he contributed in such a way that merits his own article in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in Forbes, bizjournals.com, "First Saturn Dealer Picked". Times Daily (Alabama). November 20, 1989. - and 123 more GNews hits, which clearly meets GNG. (GregJackP (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Weak delete - passing mentions aren't quite significant coverage, sources given do not appear sufficient to
notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 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) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

keep CEO pof a significant company, significant enough that Forbes writes an article when he resigned. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Forbes and other articles only state he resigned and who replaced him, no mention of why he left or what he accomplished in the one year he headed Pep Boys. Same lack of detail/notability about his other positions. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Companies employ managers. No big deal. See
WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 17 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Griscom

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Rufus Griscom

Articles for deletion/Rufus Griscom (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Rufus Griscom (3rd nomination)

Rufus Griscom (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)

Internet businessman who does not seem to meet
WP:NOTABILITY, although his website Babble.com seems to be reasonably notable. Article has been in current state for four years. The article does not cite any sources, and all I can find through Google books is [56] and [57], which are pretty borderline. Concerning the previous AFD consensus, I am not sure whether the individual's historical coverage is necessarily related to current notability. Claritas (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete - though notability is not temporary, this person's fame is tied to
notability. Since coverage of the person does not extend much beyond that, I would argue to delete or possibly redirect to Babble.com.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 May 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) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete dude who made a website, but of whom there's really nothing that can be said, in an encyclopedic context anyway. Redirecting to his website is an option, but I feel that would set rather a bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep head of a notable website is notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)![reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTINHERITED: "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable." — Satori Son 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. As above, notability can not merely be inherited from his website without anything more. --
Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 11 May 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
talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Havana (2010 musical)

Havana (2010 musical) (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 important. Show never produced JDDJS (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I will like to point out is that there is no talk about the plot or even the sings of the show at all in the article. Also if this artcile does end up getting kept, the name will have to change since it was made before 2010 and never produced in 2010. And just because a singer recorded a couple of the songs does not made it worth keeping. Many albums do not have pages. Also this singer is not very famous. If a huge singer sang them then it might be worth considering keeping it.--JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted in the nom, this show has never been produced and may never be produced. In any case, the article is premature, per
WP:Crystal. Substantially all of the references are about how the musical was announced and then cancelled. If the musical is ever notable, an article can be written then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article passes
talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not that the show didn't make it to Broadway; it was never produced at all - It's been on the shelf for ten years and may never be produced. Wildhorn's wife, Eder, recorded a couple of the songs eleven years years ago on an album featuring Wildhorn's songs from various shows. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the show never happened, so is not notable. Recreate as and when the show is actually produced. Jack1956 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable non-musical. Dreamspy (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Wildhorn, to avoid breaking the links from several articles which link to it. The show may very well end up being produced, since it was not through any fault of the show itself that it ended up being cancelled; because of this I think it is premature to delete the article this soon after the cancellation of the show. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a bad idea. The article is premature now, but might be useful later if the show does get produced, and relinking the articles might be a pain. I do have question: how many articles do have links to it?--JDDJS (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Going to the page and looking at 'what links here', there's 20+. Several are user pages, and most of what's left is a result of a template of Frank Wildhorn's musicals - so every musical of his cross references every other one, which makes sense. So about half the work would be done by simply changing the one template. David V Houston (talk) 23:37, 18 May 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) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hartman

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

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

I don't believe that Hartman is mentioned sufficiently in reliable sources to meet the requirements on notability. I propose that this article be deleted, an article on the group Hartman heads, Fairness Campaign, be created (currently redirects to Hartman), and Hartman redirect to that article. The group, which has no article, is more notable than its current leader, Hartman. ← George^talk 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - I'm the one that made the list at of potential sources at Talk:Chris Hartman#Hangon, but I admit that I'm not an expert on what which of the sources are reliable or how much coverage is considered sufficient coverage in this situation. I just knew that there were more sources available. I'm fine with at least this discussion about how to proceed. Some links are primary sources, but others—namely wave3.com, whas.com, fox41.com, time.com, wlky.com, courier-journal.com, and kentucky.com—are legitimate, mainstream news outlets. I agree that Fairness Campaign should probably have an article, but I'm not sure that merging them is the correct approach. Hartman has been politically involved before becoming director of the Campaign—at least in John Yarmuth's campaign—and likely will be afterward. It is probably true that most of the sources are related to Fairness work, so I understand the rationale for merge or deletion, but an individual can also be notable on their own and I'm not sure if statements attributed to a group's director should automatically get associated with the group. —Ost (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had done a quick Google news search, which only returns 7 hits for Chris (or Christopher) Hartman associated with Fairness Campaign. This is opposed to over 100 for the Fairness Campaign itself (it looked like several different movements used the name, so I added the term 'gay' to limit the results, but the underlying point is that the group is significantly more notable than the head).

And are we sure that the Christopher Hartman who worked for John Yarmuth is the same Chris Hartman that heads the Fairness Campaign? The source cited attributes the information to a blog, which no longer exists. Are there any sources that mention Hartman in the context of both? I couldn't find any, and it struck me as odd that the Hartman associated with the Fairness Campaign was almost always spelled 'Chris', while the one associated with the Yarmuth was almost always spelled 'Christopher'. I was only able to find 4 results that mentioned a Hartman in the context of Yarmuth, so I'm not sure how notable that is either.

To quote
WP:N, "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," emphasis mine. I just don't think that Hartman has received significant coverage, as most cases where he's mentioned are just short blurbs, not actually describing or discussing him. ← George^talk 10:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Does not meet general notability guidelines. -Reconsider ! 10:00, 10 May 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) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 11 May 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) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Getcha Pull: A Tribute to Dimebag Darrell

Getcha Pull: A Tribute to Dimebag Darrell (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)

loki 22:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this
talk) 22:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more information can be added - perhaps list which recordings were new, which were not (if any, I believe the Avenged Sevenfold one was not). Many of these artists are notable for being quite big yet still doing this project - normally only small bands do tribute discs. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think if more information can be added, they will come from the Metal Hammer magazine. So it may be appropriate to merge Getcha Pull: A Tribute to Dimebag Darrell with the Metal Hammer's article.--200.139.78.207 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 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) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Notable artists, released by a notable publication. Merging to Dimebag, Pantera, or Metal Hammer are not appropriate without loss of information in this article. If information about other covermount Metal Hammer albums was available, and already extant in that article, I could support a merge. - BalthCat (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
loki 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not passing notability onto other artists in the compilation. As your own link says, notability CAN be inherited in the case of books, music and films. It is an officially released album, by a notable publisher, featuring notable artists. Additionally, in this case sourcing issues are
not justification for deletion. As I said, a merge to Metal Hammer, or to a Metal Hammer discography, would be perfectly acceptable were there other information to go with it. As it is, a merge into band articles would involve information attrition and redundancy. - BalthCat (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, but this does not reply to my question. ;)
loki 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't intend to. RS guarantees are not necessary at this point. It's not BLP. Pointing a finger at one person who isn't invested in the topic and saying "RS or it dies!" is not appropriate. - BalthCat (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what is appropriate in this case? Merge unsourced information?--
loki 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
My suggestion is as above. In the absence of further information on Metal Hammer covermount albums, leave the article be. - BalthCat (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia likes it if you can find third party sources. These may emerge in the coming year as going on past, similar ideas (most recently the
Kerrang put together) often end up as bonus tracks on actual album releases by the artists involved. Problem is, as a contemporary publication we won't find much on it right now because MH tends to be a commercial rival with those other publications. I'm sure some websites of semi-reliability could be dug up witha few google searches. I'll try and get around to it. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:17, 12 May 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. The band is mentioned in its lead singer's bio. Also noting unsourced band - there is no reliable sourced info to merge. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks and Stones (band)

Sticks and Stones (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)

I can't find significant coverage for this
talk) 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. allmusic.com lists two bands called "Sticks & Stones", two bands called "Sticks and Stones", and one band called "Sticks & Stone". None of them are this band. We may therefore infer that this band is, at best, the sixth-most-notable band named "Sticks & Stones" or some close approximation thereof. That is not a category of which being the sixth-most-notable member is sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. When the other five (or more) bands have articles perhaps we can reconsider the matter. Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge to Jack Terricloth (Ventantonio).- BalthCat (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mistakenly closed this early, not seeing the relist. I have reopened it to allow the discussion to run its course. Shimeru (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines of
WP:MUSIC. PK T(alk) 16:29, 12 May 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) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

New Medicine (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)

This band appears to not quite meet
talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, you're right men, i doesn't denied you refutation. That you believe this article have criteria of speedy deletion, you decide, i search, and searched all web this month, and no found more. I wait that you consider this info. I'm working for wikipedia, for like it, with the more seriously of the situation it merit. UltraHeadShot —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 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) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep: I guess there's a bit of
WP:CRYSTAL here, but the Uproar Festival will put them among some very notable names, in an international (binational?) tour. If nothing else, merge to label page! - BalthCat (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Davnor (talk) 15:24, 11 May 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) 02:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Susumu Ueno

Susumu Ueno (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 are to listings which establish his existence and the existence of his books, but give no indication of independent coverage or other evidence of notability.
talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Blair^{Speak to Me}/_Breathe 11:21, 4 May 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) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The article asserts him to be the author of standard textbooks, which would meet WP:PROF; unfortunately I know no way of really verifying this with my limited language skills. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from a Google search I can see for example that his book on management accounting (the fifth item in the "main publications" section) has a few universities listing it as one of the books for some courses e.g. Osaka University [58], Shiga University [59], Tohoku University [60]). cab (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The third book in the publications section seems to be in some use as well. I'm not sure whether they're in wide enough use that this guy meets PROF on that grounds, though. I suppose there's a valid argument for keeping the article. Shimeru (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to explain why this person is notable. He has written textbooks, but there is no evidence that they are "standard." GS finds only one paper ("The influence of culture on budget control practices in the USA and Japan: An empirical study") which is cited 70 times. Using his Japanese name finds a handful of papers with 2 or 3 citations each. He may be notable, but the article doesn't indicate how he meets
WP:PROF, and I can't find any evidence of notability with Google. Since this is an apparently autobiographical article, one assumes that the author has made the best possible case. He is president of the Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Association, but it's not clear whether that's actually a notable society (the article on that society carries a number of maintenance tags). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:25, 13 May 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) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BugNET

BugNET (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 software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the one source given in the article is a blog entry which doesn't mention this product. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a bug tracking system and customer support issue tracking system. Back office software for tech businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the page. I see no justification for the delete nomination. I am not the creator of BugNET. I added the BugNET page so links from comparison tables had some place to go and allow users to find the home page. The linked home page describes BugNET appropriately and has links to Features, FAQ, Downloads, Forum. A Google search will show this is a legitimate FOSS product. I based the page on BugTracker.NET which is a different but similarly specified product. GregDude (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more description has been added and source referenced by myself and others. GregDude (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The justifications cited above ( 1. a place for wikilinks to go, 2. aid to finding the software's web site, 3. the content of the software's web site, and 4. the software exists), are all irrelevant to the issue of notability. See the
general notability criteria for guidance. Davnor (talk) 15:20, 11 May 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) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Also reads a bit like an advertisement, which is perhaps inevitable as there's very little to say about it otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Davnor (talk) 15:21, 11 May 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) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Wayne C. Spiggle

Wayne C. Spiggle (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 minor local officeholder; no sign of notability outside the county commission's meeting room. Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough google hits and Gnews hits to verify notability. Moorsmur (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You get a lot more search hits if you drop the middle initial: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Spiggle's site - BalthCat (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - but under what part of
WP:BIO would we justify any claim of notability? President of a state medical society? Local officeholder in one county? Raw Googlehits don't constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You appear to have mistaken me for someone who made any statement at all. I was considering the value of being a long term president of a state medical society, but he was only president for one year. So, instead of making a pronouncement, I passed on a link that might be helpful to others in coming to a conclusion. I'm not sure what's with the "raw googlehits" part either. Did I mention google? On the other hand... (why am I rebutting the rebuttal of something I didn't say? *sigh*) reliable sourcing is fixable (see
WP:ATD) so I'm not sure why you'd have made the statement even if I HAD quoted significant results in google. You could probably get away with "This is BLP so we absolutely NEED RS." but otherwise... - BalthCat (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete He has been president of the state medical society, and is a county commissioner now running for re-election. Both good things. But neither of those qualifies him as notable per [WP:GNG]] or
WP:Politician. News and Google hits are all simply local stories about the local election - not enough to confer notability. We're getting a lot of non-notable politicians with deletable wikipages right now; it's an election year. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 May 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) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Homeless Heart

Homeless Heart (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)

None of the sources is a secondary source; every source is primary (label, artists' official websites). There is a link to a news article, but it's broken. Absolutely nothing found at Google News save for a few false positives. Simply being recorded by several artists does not translate to notability if the song fails
WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no decent sources and doesn't look like it made any major charts. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage provided. Unable to find any. Fails GNG. -
talk) 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Sourcing can be fixed. Stott is notable, charting in Canada. The single was covered by Rice, who has charted in the UK, and the cover was the theme to Paradise Hotel. It was also covered by Regner, who is notable in Germany, and the album featuring that cover charted, as per the article. It was also covered by notable actress McCurdy as a part of a presumably publicised charity action. Honestly? - BalthCat (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, honestly. We have been unable to find reliable sources sufficient to create a reasonably detailed article. If "sourcing can be fixed", we have been unable to do so. Please demonstrate your case. -
talk) 12:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not interested in the topic, so I am not investing my time in researching it. There are weak sources that establish the information within the article. Sourcing issues are correctable, generally, and not sufficient for the scalpel. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" -
WP:ATD That is, in the absence of indication that this is outright erroneous or unsourceable, deletion is unjustified. - BalthCat (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You are correct; if the sourcing could be corrected, then deletion is unwarranted. However, this discussion indicates that at least three editors (including myself) have made an effort to find reliable sources and failed to find any. Unless someone can locate at least one reliable, third-party source, we must conclude that the article is, in fact, unsourceable. Davnor (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not find any sources, or not find sufficient/reliable sources? Maybe I'm underestimating the effort spent, but is five minutes of Googling meant to give a decisive answer to the question of whether it is ultimately sourceable? Are you actually objecting to the sources' veracity, or merely their strength? (These are by no means the same thing.) You can't say that information just doesn't exist because the sources are all currently weak. This sort of ostrich-like behaviour is highly frustrating, and I have never found a policy guideline indicating it is preferable. Weak/moderate sources indicate to the reasonable person that sourcing may be possible, and as such, one turns to
WP:ATD to look for other options. I am far from convinced the world has been scoured for proof that a song by a notable artist that has been covered by three other notable artists, in the ways indicated, is NN. - BalthCat (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please be careful about assuming a lack of a
WP:MUSIC. Does that mean that such sources don't exist? No, but if they do exist, someone must find and cite them; a belief that sources probably exist, due to a topic's popularity, does not qualify as evidence. Davnor (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can not find any evidence of significant coverage. Davnor (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod (programming language)

Nimrod (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics
)

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

I can't find
talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The only non-primary-source results I can find are about other Nimrods. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NOTABILITY. Searched online and in Academic Search Complete; the only independent references found were posts in unremarkable blogs. Davnor (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this nimrod article totally fails. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_11&oldid=1142640565"