Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 30#World Development Foundation

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Motasin Ali Lodi

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

Serious notability issue Technopat (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - as non notable, unreferenced. Article was twice speedied, yet recreated. This can be speedied per WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The references show the material is based on collection of information from individual people. -- Whpq (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dada

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

Non-notable performer. This article has been here for months with an absolutely ridiculous biography section which I just removed. No sources except to primary sources. No notability has been claimed nor provided. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The dreadful biography has the first section copied verbatim from the artist's myspace page. The rest of the biography is self serving promotional material. However, there is a claim to having a charted single with "Imma Zoe" hitting #8 on the US R&B Billboard chart which I've not been able to source. Aside from that, there was some minor coverage in the Miami Herald. For me, this reads as up and coming, rather than arrived. No prejudice against recreation. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:Whpq, and was also unable to find support the the claim that it was #8 on the US R&B Billboard chart. However, the Imma Zoe article exists, and unless that should be deleted as well as a result of this discussion, we should the merge the bio article to the song article. --Pink Bull 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vril (2010 Film)

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

fails WP:NFILMS, prob a hoax Tassedethe (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a YouTube-only film (what is a POV film, anyway?). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"POV film" is one that handles the entire action from the perspective of the actor or actors. We will not see an overall wide shot unless the wide is itself a perspective of one of the actors. Think Blair Witch Project... a perfect example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently failing WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable film / hoax. I checked the Rotten Tomatoes claim. No such film is listed there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. extransit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Søberg Shugart

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

delete. not notable. Hippopotamus Logic (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — Hippopotamus Logic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar results show subject meets WP:ACADEMIC#1. Qwfp (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very prolific and cited, passes WP:PROF. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Search GS with author:"M S Shugart" gives h index of 32. Nominator has made only three edits, all on this subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. WoS h-index is 11, but citations collectively total >500, which I think is a clear keep. Xxanthippe's finding suggests this is a targeted bad-faith nom. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burn time

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

No sources, possible original research magnius (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look for sources reveals the obvious to indeed be the case: a burn time is the length of time that something burns. I can find sources discussing the burn times of rockets, and the burn times of stars, and even the burn times of flamethrowers (real ones, not game ones — specific named models thereof), most of the information about which would be far out of context discussed away from their attached objects, but I've yet to find, after a brief perusal, even a hint of a source documenting video game character damage as "burn time". Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best this is a dictionary definition even for the video game portion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if anything, this would be discussed in a general article on "damage over time" in games ("ongoing damage" in D&D, etc) but I don't think it's a noteworthy topic. Oh wait - Damage over time. Christ. Marasmusine (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Egypt. There is a wider consensus that primary schools get redirected to the school district page but since this is in Egypt the relevant list is good enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Valley Schools

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

Fails to meet WP:ORG. Schools are not an exception to the notability criteria. Searching on Google News reveals no relevant news items to support a claim of notability. Raising for discussion as schools normally have a generous interpretation for notability. Fæ (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - includes a high school; the reasons why we keep these are given in the essay WP:NHS. As a British school in Cairo, it is particularly unusual. Schools in Egypt have a poor Internet presence and, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given to enable local sources to be researched. Finally, I note that the page was nominated for deletion just 7 minutes after creation, whilst it was still being written by a new editor. This is not best practice; new editors should be given advice and guidance not have their pages rushed to a deletion debate. TerriersFan (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to an essay rather than a notability guideline with a verifiable supporting consensus. Just as valid is WP:OUTCOMES which would clearly prefer a merge if sources are not forthcoming. The nomination was based on a search for supporting sources I made myself, rather than when the article was created. Fæ (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do accept the criteria laid out at WP:NHS, as do most discussants here, and I would have voted "keep" if this was a high school. However, it is not. Per the school's website [1], it serves children through grade 7. There are apparently plans to add a secondary level [2]; if and when that happens it would qualify for a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good catch; I had misread the page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Egypt, where I have added it. As now established that it is not yet a high school this is the best solution since there is not a good geographic page to merge to. TerriersFan (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn following WP:HEYMANN -- saberwyn 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single supplement

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

An unsourced article that is basically an A+B dictionary definition (A single supplement is a supplement paid by single/solo travellers) that has been hijacked as a bitching forum for IP's about Carnival Cruise Lines and their handling of the topic. I'd like to suggest that the article be deleted, then recreated as a soft-redirect to wikt:single supplement.

Was previously listed for deletion in 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single Supplement, with the result as Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- saberwyn 21:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the frankly amazing improvements by Uncle G (talk · contribs), my reasons for seeking deletion have been blown out of the water. As such, I'm withdrawing the nomination. -- saberwyn 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article meets all policies and guidelines for inclusion. It is appropriate to bring contested merge discussions to AfD to see if there is consensus for such a merge. After discussion here, no consensus for a merge was found. SilkTork *^YES! 08:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)

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

Robert Dover is notable only for starting the Cotswold Olimpick Games. There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be.

Its silly to have such a short stub article. Better to delete it, and redirect it to the Games article instead. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cotswold Olimpick Games, as I tried to do earlier. Very little is known about Dover other than his organisation of the Games, and it's impossible to discuss him without focusing on the 17th-century political and religious significance of the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the proposer does not in fact want the article deleted but rather redirected. Presumably there will be zero support for deletion. Should this be closed now? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shouldn't. Parrot of Doom 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously expecting support for deletion? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lets just keep the crystal balls out of it, ok? Parrot of Doom 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about Dover. He is an important part of the Cotswold Olimpick Games, as founder, but it has a 400-year history, and it unbalances the COG article to require it to maintain the life of Dover as a sub-article. What happens if later editors decide to pare down the material on Dover in COG? Where does that material go. Answer: the article on Robert Dover. QED. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "sub-article" you allude to amounts to less than a single paragraph. On the other hand, almost 50% of this one is about the Games, not about Dover, so it's rather easy to see which article is unbalanced. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said it was the requirement to maintain that material that would unbalance the article. In terms of word-count, your "almost 50%" is almost exactly one-third. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is precisely 42%. Your maintenance argument is an empty one, as there is nothing to maintain. It is exceedingly unlikely that any further light will be shone on Robert Dover's life other than what we already know, which is almost nothing beyond his involvement in the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Down to one-fifth now. Your confident predictions about further information on Dover seem misplaced, since I have just added a small piece about his possible involvement with the Gog Magog games (with two references). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you haven't. You've simply added some unsubstantiated speculation about something he may have been aware of. But what's very strange is that you haven't troubled to mention his recusant background, in particular the Catholic education that he received while in Wisbech Castle. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have accurately reflected what a second source (Galligan) says. The speculation, if that is indeed what it be, is Galligan's not mine. Do you have a source that refutes it? I haven't yet got round to further expanding the article, please feel free to do so with the material you describe: thank you for your even-handed bringing it forward in support of my point. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How can ill-informed speculation be refuted? The fact that the real authorities on Dover and the Games do not mention any influence on him from the Gog Magog Games ought to speak for itself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The suspicion that "the real authorities" are the ones that support your point is no doubt unworthy. The point I'm trying to make is that within a day or so of serious attention, two lots of material -- the Gog Magog Olimpicks and the Catholic education at Wisbech -- have surfaced. This comprehensively refutes the argument made by the nominator that There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, the accusations of dishonesty on my part have now started. The Games article uses the undisputed experts in the field, including Francis Burns, secretary of the Robert Dover's Games Society. None of them support your claim, and neither is it what the source you have used says; you have embellished what it actually says to suit your own ends. His Catholic upbringing is significant to Dover's story for a reason connected with the naming of the Games as the Olimpicks, as the Games article explains, nothing more. How are you going to explain that in this forever-destined-to-be-a-stub? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of dishonesty, and apologise for any offense. Please be so kind as to do the same with your use of the word "embellish". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)However, I don't accept your reasoning on the Catholic upbringing. Firstly, this is potential material that was not in the article at a time when the nominator stated that there could never be anything new. Secondly, to maintain that it's significant only because of its connection to the games is petitio principii. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you accept my reasoning or not is immaterial to me, as I am simply reflecting what is said by the reliable sources you so studiously ignore in favour of school text books that you choose to misinterpret, and, yes, embellish. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject those allegations, and note that you do not (cannot?) refute my points. Clearly this part of the discussion has degenerated into personal recrimination. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please lok at the article's talk page, where I have demonstrated your logic error. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Advanced PE for Edexcel, a school textbook, really considered a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's a school textbook? Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why would that make it unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you've never known a school text book to over simplify because of its audience or just get things wrong because, well, it is just a school textbook? Where do you think school textbooks get their information from? They're not usually at the forefront of what Wikipedia would term original research. The original, higher-quality source needs to be found and used instead. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The text book doesn't appear to support the claims inserted by Kenilworth - see [3]. Also, it does indeed simplify the subject, as the other sources I've read are ambiguous about the year in which the games started, where as this is certain. Parrot of Doom 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it does. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you going to find the original source, or are you going to insist on using second-rate ones instead? Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Secondary != second-rate. Where did I insist on using this source? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course secondary sources aren't second rate, but if you bother reading what I said it's clear I didn't say that. I said a school textbook is inadequate. You added it, so take some responsibility. It's already been demonstrated that the source over simplifies things. If you don't remove it, I will as it's clearly not good enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Simplifies != over-simplifies. Where was the latter demonstrated? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        One example was given above; the date of the first Games is unknown. Here's another: it's also not certain in what year Dover went to Cambridge University. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you think the two books used support the claims you've entered into this article, then why not join in the discussion on the talk page? It seems to me as though you're searching Google Books for any hint of this subject, and using the results to support your own research. Its easy to prove me wrong. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not refusing to, I'm just trying to do several things at once here! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Williams reference also contains material on Dover's reputation as a wit and poet, not remotely connected with the games. A second refutation of the nominator's argument, after MF's suggestion of his recusant education. (And a third by my reading of Galligan). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another reference with further information, not connected with the games: this time family data. That article on the Cotswold Olimpick Games is going to look a little top-heavy if this is all copied across. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck to you if you think you can turn this stub into a well-referenced article about an individual known only for his instigation of the Cotswold Games. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dover has a fairly long biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If he is notable enough for a biography in the definitive dictionary of British biography, first compiled over 200 years after his death, how on earth is he not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, which contains articles on any number of minor contemporary celebrities who will have been forgotten about in a fraction of that time? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and why is he notable? You should read his entry in the ODNB, most of it relates to the games. Parrot of Doom 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have done. My comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's not a simple question of notability, it's a matter of how would the subject best be served on Wikipedia. If, theoretically, all the information on Dover was incorporated into the article on the Cotswold Games as part for the background to the subject, exactly what would be the point of having a separate article for Dover? The ODNB entry says as much about the games as it does about Dover himself; more in fact. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article as it stands is informative, well-referenced and says plenty about Dover himself. His notability is established by his contribution in founding the Games and the fact that he is the subject of a biography in the DNB and mentions in plenty of other sources. I really don't think those wanting to delete the article have a leg to stand on. In which ways does he fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The answer, quite clearly, is none. I do not believe that Wikipedia would be best-served in the slightest by merging this information into the Cotswold Games article. There is, I know, a tendency for some (and that is some) editors to prefer long, general, multi-section articles over shorter, more specific articles. I'm afraid I don't subscribe to that view and it is not a view which is particularly mandated by any of our policies or guidelines. If a 3+ paragraph article can be written about Dover then that article is clearly worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Meets Boy (webcomic)

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

Webcomic which fails WP:WEB. There's a consensus that having won or being nominated for the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is not a strong indication of notability. Claritas § 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that as a fan of the comic I'd really like to keep the article out there, but I'm having a hard time making a case for the comic having notability. That's a shame. Doniago (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Flagged as needing references for over three years. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Live a Low-Carbon Life

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

Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK#Criteria. SnottyWong ^chatter 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking on any of the handy find sources links above shows significant coverage. Unomi (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Multiple reviews are cited in the article; plenty of significant coverage. Johnfos (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do any of the sources verify that the book meets one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:NBOOK#Criteria, or are these sources mainly advertisements for the book? While it's plain to see that there are a lot of hits on Google for that search term, that doesn't imply notability. Clicking on the "handy find sources link" above results in plenty of links to the book's website, places to buy the book, regurgitated press releases of the book, etc. Also, the Clarion award is clearly not a major literary award. SnottyWong ^comment 13:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly meets notability criteria 1: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience". Sources of these multiple published works include: Journal of Environmental Health Research, The Guardian, and The Times, which are cited in the article. -- Johnfos (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action Bullet

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

This article appears to be a place of unverifiable tall tales and is largely unsourced. It details a semmingly non-notable band. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with something to support its existence and its notability, and replace the current text with something better. That would be great, but, per the Talk page, I'm not convinced it's real. The article text is mostly from http://www.kangastus.com/ab/history.php .. there is a MySpace page at http://www.myspace.com/actionbullet but surely if they had been active there'd be some more evidence somewhere? DBaK (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. this completely fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its definitely a hoax , no record at Allmusic. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish and Dougal

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

So unreferenced and full of original research (for so long) that I want to weep. No indication whatsoever that the topic is especially notable; this is inevitable when no references at all are provided, of course. Some IP deleted the PROD-tag with no explanation ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable BBC radio comedy featuring two extremely notable comedians. Google News shows sufficient coverage, e.g. from The Times, the Glasgow Herald, and Yorkshire Post. The scripts have been published in book form. Hardly surprising that the PROD was removed. Perhaps tagging it as being unreferenced would help deal with the problem if it's been like this for such a long time?--Michig (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because those tags are known for producing results. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. If you're not prepared to put any effort into the article yourself, but still feel that it's lacking, at least tag it correctly so that someone who may have it on their watchlist can deal with your concerns. This article can be fixed by editing and shouldn't have been brought to AFD.--Michig (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not prepared to put any effort into the article yourself, at least tag it correctly so that someone who may have it on their watchlist can deal with your concerns. So how many improvements have you made to the article in the twelve hours since you noted the above sources? Did you add either of them in? Did you copyedit anything? Or did you choose to spend your time spouting about it here but actually doing nothing of any use? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're here, unfortunately, to discuss whether this article should be deleted. Keep your comments on-topic please.--Michig (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my questions were, "So how many improvements have you made to the article in the twelve hours since you noted the above sources? Did you add either of them in? Did you copyedit anything? Or did you choose to spend your time spouting about it here but actually doing nothing of any use?" A little research has enabled me to find the answers myself: none, no, no, yes. In that order. So don't give me all this "keep your comments on-topic" crap to try and cover up your apparent hypocrisy over this issue. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on articles, not editors, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assertion that Michig's behaviour over this issue has been hypocritical. This is not a personal attack, as it is commenting on a specific content issue rather than on a contributor in a general way. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise you to stop now. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words, "Get over it." Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A radio series running for over 5 years, a spin-off from another radio show which has been running for 20+ years. As Michig says, notability isn't the problem, references are! If we are going to delete because of lack of, or incomplete, references there won't be much of WP left! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the article at some points reads like someones opinion and is full of weasle words, I've seen far longer Comedy series aticles.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with TreasuryTag, the article has no resources so it is impossible to tell if the article is true or whether it is all original research--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll gladly join the search party for references if that's all we need. As Richhoncho said, it's a notable spin-off from a very successful show. Bangdrum (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Michig. It appears the lack of <ref>s is going to be addressed. HairyWombat (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed it. Other editors are welcome to add more of course. I've spent about an hour of my time on it. Need I say more? --Michig (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Continental Junior Hockey League. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cashman

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

Non notable semi-pro player and coach. Played only a handful of games in minor league hockey. Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE nor WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He played in both the WCHL and CHL which are fully pro leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 games total otherwise just a semi-pro hockey career. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just pointing out that all it takes is one game to pass WP:ATHLETE. But I just wanted to clarify, which is why its a comment at the moment not a !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't state under the WP:ATHLETE guidelines a specific number of games required to qualify. It just states having to play full professional level which would qualify anyone that has played even 1 game of professional hockey at any level. -Hockeyguru71 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2010

You do still need to have multiple references from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Athlete is very general. that's why many of the other sport wikiprojects add criteria. WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE says "played 1+ games in a top pro league.... or played at least 100 games in a fully professional minor league." and other options such as Olympics... Bhockey10 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Continental Junior Hockey League. I simply cannot find anything that discusses this individual in reliable sources. There are plenty of trivial mentions that confirm he has been involved in some barely-notable leagues, but otherwise, this is the closest thing to an actual article on him, and it focuses on the CJHL rather than him. There is no possible way to write a biography that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Reso lute 20:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per resolute on the basis of GNG. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Corridor and Westside Parkway

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

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

These articles contain speculation about a potential freeway without demonstrating notability beyond what would be justified as a brief mention in the future section of California State Route 58. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation, original research, contents not notable beyond one or two paragraphs on California State Route 58. --Rs chen 7754 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't currently pass GNG, and I'm not sure it will once it's built. —Fredddie ™ 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to CA 58. Since it appears these two freeways are speculation, the two terms can be redirected there with a brief mention in CA 58. Dough 48 72 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it appears the information from both these articles is not worth keeping in edit history, delete both and create new redirect to CA 58 for them. Dough 48 72 03:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. The Westside Parkway, which is in fact in its early building stages, has received very significant coverage from reliable sources. [4][5][6] Even the unbuilt Centennial Corridor passes WP:GNG.[7] Many editors are under the false impression that proposed projects automatically fail WP:GNG simply because they're proposed. Not the case at all. The Lower Manhattan Expressway will likely never be built, but it still passed GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article's creator on the talk page, the draft environmental impact study (EIS) for the construction is not out yet, meaning between the draft EIS or the final EIS, or both, the "no-build option" could be chosen and the full freeway segments not built. The fact remains that a repaving project on a highway gets "significant press coverage", but because of WP:RECENTISM that sort of project doesn't always warrant mention in the articles, or separate articles. The Michigan Department of Transportation has completely shut down the I-196 freeway here in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with near daily news updates for a while. When all is said and done, the article will contain something along the lines of "I-196 was rebuilt by MDOT in 2010 in a project dubbed, 'The Fix on I-196'. This project rebuilt the overpasses and widened the freeway to 6 lanes for future expansion." Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Westside Parkway project has been receiving significant coverage for close to 10 years and the Centenial Corridor for close to 5 years, WP:RECENTISM (an essay, not a guideline or policy) does not apply. Even WP:RECENTISM states is it meant for topics "that might hardly be remembered a month later." --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it might be an essay, I still refer to the concept that some "recent events" coverage is too detailed for "the long eye of history", which is where our writing should focus. In my opinion, and yes, I'm allowed to have one, until the FEIS is out, there's speculation as to the actual outcome of these roads, and they can be adequately covered in the SR-58 article with a paragraph or two summarizing what they are and how they affect that highway. Imzadi 1979 → 19:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever is necessary. I did create this article some time ago, though I don't have any concrete recollection of doing so. It was probably during my meth days when I was on wikipedia hours on end creating and editing transportation-related articles in a drug-induced frenzy. I won't miss this article when it's gone. By the way, I am totally clean now and have been since Nov 2008. Nutmegger (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be the most entertaining comment I've seen on a talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both until a "build" option is actually selected and committed to by the agency involved. Failing that, merge Westside Pkwy into Centennial Corridor, as it is a subset of the larger corridor. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakable (Movie)

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

Non-notable film, no evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. Prod removed by creator without any justification. Hqb (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even a real film, just school kids playing with a camcorder by the sound of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide what is and isn't a "Real Film", Andrew Lenahan? Go watch "Shooting at the Moon", a short film with an article, and tell me why it is more deserving of an article than The Breakable. What I mean is, the breakable is a film that challenges us to think about the definition of art and importance, and if you can't handle that, then maybe you're not ready for the internet age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.29.113 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal Oak High School, Delete as while it IS a real film, and while it may be respected in its area, it has not had distribution nor coverage, and so does not meet the requirements as set forth in WP:Notability (films). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. The film itself fails to meet notability criteria, and the article about this high school should not be a dumping ground for every school project that a student want to write about. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Struck above and went with delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? How can you watch this and tell me its not notable. If this isn't notable by Wikipedia standards, than maybe you need to rethink your standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.135.134 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should say "The Breakable" is more then just a school project. Because it wasn't. "The Breakable" is the point in time which the teens of Oak-Town(Royal Oak Area) could composed art that large amount of other teen could appreciated. I feel if you seen "The Breakable" you can have a strong argument about whether or not the film is "real". The film was actually Distributed also aired on television. Including poster, commercials, and premiers were invested into the "The Breakable" pre and post production. The Producers of the film took it seriously whether you believe it or not. However, no disrespect instead of trying to deface the art why not embrace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.114.194 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts the film exists. It is just that Wikipedia has general standards by which to measure sutitability for inclusion that have been arrived at after years of discussion. Please review WP:Notability (film). What we'll need for it to be considred for inclusion are reliable sources that speak about the film directely and in detail. If it was aired on television, share a review. If it was written up in a newspaper, share the article. Help us help you save the film's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This has been withdrawn but if serious imporvements don't happen quickly I predict another discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hate crimes against white people (née Anti-white)

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

This article is a thinly-veiled attempt to push a particular POV. For example, it claims that criticizing "ethnocentric elements within the white commmunity" is a form of "anti-white" racism. It's worth pointing out that the article's author, Wittsun, uses "ethnocentric" as a euphemism for things like this; see his comments on this talk page. The article sites 3 specific events and uses them to establish a general trend of "anti-white policies"? Obvously a major stretch; in short, this is an essay, not an article. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stonemason89 is an activist poster with an ax to grind. 'Anti-white' is a legitimate entry which has been more than adequately referenced.--Wittsun (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I originally tagged it for refs, and was about to tag it for neologism, until I did some hunting around online. The term "anti-white" appears to be well established in WP:Reliable sources, such as in some of the citations given: The Guardian, for example, is a left-of-center British newspaper, and strongly anti-racist. Let's improve the article, and remove POV wording and unreliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "anti-white" is an adjective, and not denotative by itself. What's the noun phrase? Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Anti-white bias", maybe? "Anti-white racism"? There are actually two things talked about in the article at the moment: simple bias (e.g. media, policy etc.), and violent aggression. Neither title covers both topics well. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually what is talked about in one part of the article actually goes by the name of reverse discrimination, for which we already have an impoverished article (compared to what has been written by the world on the subject). This is partly the point. Pick a title that isn't denotative of an actual concept (or person, place, event, or thing) and one is likely to get original research by synthesis, as one ends up with a mish-mash of unrelated factoids that just happen to use a particular adjective. reverse discrimination is sorely lacking, and if one wants to improve the encyclopaedia's coverage of it, and the world's several and various views of it, then that is the place to write content, not a page with a non-subject title.
      Similarly, if you want to break out racism in the United States#Anti-White crimes then in fact the subject, as discussed in sources, is hate crimes against white people. There's a fair amount to discuss, from U.S. law enforcement surveys, through questions that people have raised of whether enforcement is even, and through whether it constitutes racism (which, unsurprisingly, people differ upon), to the notion put forward by some people that there's no such thing at all.
      I suggest that your solution here is to take out the reverse discrimination parts of this article (and focus your efforts there for writing about that subject) leaving the crimes, to rename this article from its non-subject title to hate crimes against white people, to refactor, and to start putting in some analysis and explanation instead of just growing a laundry list that is largely uninformative to readers (and will only — I speak from long experience. — result in an AFD re-nomination a year from now). Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gulagism has a certain ring to it. Most of the popular frame-words, eg 'racism' and 'discrimination' are attributable to the Frankfurt School--Wittsun (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not going to get very far in any discussion on Wikipedia if you accuse other editors of "gulagism". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge or rename Changing my mind on this one: since the term "anti-white" is used in two senses here, it's best to move the referenced hate crime content to its own article, and merge the rest of the referenced stuff (e.g. media bias in UK) to reverse discrimination, as Uncle G suggests. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Reverse discrimination content now copied to new section Reverse discrimination#United Kingdom. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The Racism article is already overly long for a merge, and there is enough scholarly material on this specific topic that it is worth expanding.—RJH (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on merging. The problem being that the concept of 'racism' itself has traditionally served as a vehicle for anti-white policies. For example: "The response of the authorities to rising levels of racist violence targeting the natives has been to increase crackdowns on "racism" – by the white natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway."[8]--Wittsun (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making a list of unconnected crimes against white people and trying to turn it into an encyclopedia article is WP:SYNTH at its worst. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The crimes listed cite sources supporting the assertion that they were solely motivated by racism: that's the connection. Could you please expand on where you see synthesis? There is a possible case for a split into two articles, however. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where are the sources that link one crime to the others? Without that, it's synthesis. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.") The article joins A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by any of the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But all the sources explicitly state that they were racially motivated, so I'm afraid I still don't see the synthesis. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Correct heading should be "reverse discrimination." Merge with that or delete if not possible. This is a trojan horse pseudo-heading for right wing propaganda, mark my words. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your take on antisemitism? Should it be merged on the same grounds? And if not, why not? The problem with 'reverse discrimination' is that it implies a justification for anti-white policies; or is it common to describe Palestinian terrorism as 'reverse zionism'? --Wittsun (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are comparing apples and oranges. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the concerns raised by Malik Shabazz and Uncle G. -Oescp (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anti-Europeanism/rewrite. Also, there are already seperate articles such as Francophobia and Anti-British sentiment which describes specific cases of antagonism, so this article is quite redundant. A vehicle for POV pushing that lacks any real analysis. -Oescp (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also like to point out that we don't have an article on Anti-black. Why, then, must we need an article on "Anti-white"? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point that we can turn this into an article about an actual subject by using the rename tool to change the title, and using the edit tool to take out stuff that overlaps reverse discrimination and to add stuff on the subject of hate crimes against white people, transforming this from a largely useless laundry list of hate crimes into an article providing sourced analysis of the topic, which there do exist sources for. I'll start you off. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - antisemitism is listed. Anti-Black could also be added. --Wittsun (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, with some reservations - The name change is a good development, and most (if not all) of the POV-pushing that was present in the original article has been removed by this point. Thus, I no longer think this article necessarily needs to be deleted. I still have mixed feelings about it; namely, that this article is bound to become a target for POV-pushers and vandals (which is why I think it will need to be watched carefully by several editors to make sure this won't happen, and I also think it should be put on the pending-changes system for the same reason), that the article still has a very limited scope (it's overly focused on the US and UK; surely there needs to be some mention of South African farm attacks in here?), and that it doesn't mention white-on-white hate crimes (which do exist in some jurisdictions; see Talk:Hate_crime#White-On-White_Hate_Crimes for more information). However, all of these problems are fixable, and my initial reasons for taking this article to AFD no longer apply, so I have no choice but to withdraw my nomination. I'm not going to close the discussion myself, because I don't think the other participants in the dicussion have reached a consensus yet, and I'm also not sure whether this really deserves its own article or whether it would be better covered as a subsection of Hate crimes. Hopefully allowing this discussion to continue the full 7 days will allow a consensus to be reached. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope that you propound is not implicit in either title or content, note. Nor is it contained in sources. The limitation is one that you are imposing yourself. As mentioned above and on the talk page, I've started you off in a direction that I, as an ordinary editor, think can be continued profitably, with more sourced analysis and more viewpoints and aspects of the subject and, yes, more than just black-on-white. (There are sources that discuss whether it is a misattribution to lump, as some people have, hate crimes against Hispanics in with hate crimes against white people, for example. There are also sources that present arguments that crimes against whites are motivated by economics not hate. And there are sources that oppose. RJHall is quite right that there is serious discussion to be had.) The best thing that you and anyone else can do here is work on the article to provide these. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something - I think, under its new title, there is an encyclopedic topic here, but I don't believe that this article is it. My suggestion would be to stubbify and start over, taking care to use mainstream reliable sources. --B (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaxally

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

WP:NEO. No CSD for this. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Carey (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. 4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that notability isn't established. — Timneu22 · talk 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for some sort of reliable source coverage, and found some items about the local radio show he did with his partner, Scott Parkin and this. The acting is all bit parts and walk-ons, as far as I can see. The article is basically a CV and being used to advertise his company. The same editor also created Voices Carey, LLC. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am struggling with how to create references within the body of the article as I am a new wiki editor. Can you help? Richardcarpen (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reconsider notability: while Bruce Carey does not currently meet the first two criteria of the notability requirements, he does meet the 3rd: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment with his voice over work and his creative voice over services. This may be a useful addition to wikipedia in the area of voice acting. Richardcarpen (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as of now no references have been found to verify Bruce Carey's work as a voice actor. Even the imbd website does not support the claims currently made in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately he fails all three points of Wikipedia:Entertainer#Entertainers. Had he made a significant contribution to the voice-over business, it would have been fine, but voice over is not heavily influenced by Bruce. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Shamim Ahmad

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

Appears to be unsourcable, at least in English. WP:V, WP:N. Sourcing difficulties undoubtably complicated by the listing of three different names, all made with fairly common name parts, but looking even for similar names associated with the deputy speaker poisition and/or Faisalabad was fruitless. A similarly but not precisely named legislator from a different district exists. The "roti, kapra aur makan" campaign phrase also netted several references but none that I could find directly associated with any of the names given. Unsourced for three years. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification of the positions held by the subject is provided. The Punjab Assembly's web site doesn't list him as a former deputy speaker, and the current deputy speaker, who has a slightly similar name, is from a different party. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Nice job paring down the August 2007 unreffed BLPs, btw, only 2 right now. Unless this can be sourced to verify content, ok to delete.--Milowent (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Allegedly a member of a sub-national parliament. 21:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reid W. Barton

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

The subject does not satisfy WP:PROF. Need debate on whether 4 Putnam medals or other citations are enough. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion leading up to this AfD at WT:WPM#Another vanity page? Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will say weak keep for now. This is not your usual vanity page, the subject seems to be a notable mathematitian (judging by contests won). I think the project can afford to include borderline cases like this. I acan be persuaded to change my vote if it is shown that sources are false/not independent or some other violation. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. "The subject seems to be a notable mathematician (judging by contests won)." Surely you do not believe that the sorts of mathematics contests that someone has won is an indicator as to how good a mathematician he/she is? (Most mathematicians have not won any "mathematics competitions" at all, depending on what one calls "competition".) I definitely agree that winning notable competitions can be a good argument for having a Wikipedia article. (In agreement with #2 of WP:PROF.) But winning notable competitions is definitely not a convincing argument for being a good mathematician. PS T 01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some related AfD discussions. The article Arthur Rubin was nominated for deletion three times: [9], [10], [11]. Rubin is one of the few other individuals to have won the Putnam competition the maximum number of times. However, that article was not kept solely on the basis of the Putnam winnings, and so may not be the best model for a keep vote. Likewise, the AfD for IMO gold medalist Darij Grinberg (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darij Grinberg) closed as delete, but that is also a fairly weak precedent, since one IMO gold is clearly not comparable to four golds and four Putnam victories. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is comparable to previous discussions: the issue is qualitatitive, i.e. whether to consider IMO victories notable at all, not quantitative. I also see problems with arguing for notability in any context based on "being the best so far": that is an approach more suitable for a periodic publication such as the Guiness record book. Arcfrk (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E, fails WP:PROF (the listed papers have 3 and 8 citations, respectively), poorly sourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:prof is satisfied by any one of the criteria. Agree he fails most (if not all) points other than #2, but that one seem unambiguous to me. de Bivort 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for full disclosure, I am personal friends with Gabriel Carroll, whose article should probably meet the same fate as Barton's. That said, I do have some understanding of the significance of being a Putnam finalist. de Bivort 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neutral definitively meets the criteria of wp:prof. #2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Winning the Putnam is a prestigious honor at the national level. It's like winning the NCAA basketball tournament, but in mathematics. de Bivort 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a student honour, not the kind of professional honour WP:PROF is referring to (i.e. ir's not the Fields Medal). And, for that matter, the claim that he won the Putnam is unsourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, according to the subject's CV [12] (which can't be used as a source), he was a Putnam fellow 3 times, not 4. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That CV is out of date. He won it four times: see the maa site now referenced in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam is not the kind of award that WP:PROF has in mind, since Putnam is a student level competition, rather than an academic award for research achievements. Item 9 in WP:PROF#Notes and examples specifically excludes student level awards: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Nsk92 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that. And yes, now it seems #2 doesn't apply. changing vote to neutral, as I think the criteria are now too restrictive. Seems there should be room in the encyclopedia for a handful of articles on the students who were the best of their generation at the college level. de Bivort 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the awards/prizes listed are in student level competitions, so they do not count towards passing WP:PROF; the publication and citability data is quite limited for the moment so the subject definitely does not pass WP:PROF for now. I suppose one could try to argue notability on general WP:BIO or even WP:ATHLETE grounds, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has been specially noted for his achievements by the Science journal with an article starting 'Even in the rarefied world of mathematics competitions, Reid Barton is one of a kind' so I think he probably satisfies notability under WP:BASIC. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if it seems clear that this article does not meet WP:PROF, the consensus that has been developed for academics, it is not clear that WP:PROF is an appropriate guideline to be used here. These additional criteria (WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, and so on) are just summaries of usual arguments that arise in several instances, not exhaustive rules. As the article does not assert the notability of the person as an academic but as an (uniquely?) exceptionally successful participant in various contests, saying "does not meet WP:PROF" does not seem relevant here (to me). It is better to think about notability from scratch. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering notability from scratch, I don't think that success in youth contests demonstrates notability. Per WP:BLP1E I think we should be very conservative about including articles for contest winners. However, given that the subject is pursuing an academic career, WP:PROF does seem like the standard I would look for to keep the article. That is not met here. For all these reasons, I think that we should not have an article on this individual at this time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For athletes, anyone drafted out of college in the first two rounds of the NBA draft is considered notable. That's dozens of college youth who, as you might say, only won contests. And yet, they are considered notable. The putnam is extraordinarily challenging. It has 120 possible points - the median score for thousands of students who take it is 1 or 2 points. Barton and the other "winners" typically score around a hundred. It is incredibly impressive, and proof of near savant-level mathematical capabilities. de Bivort 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a mathematician I am very familiar with the Putnam exam. The issue whether WP:ATHLETE is too accomodating can be left for another day. The subject here is not an athelete, but an aspiring academic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This article could be written mentioning the contest accomplishments, with current status only later. People are whatever they are notable for — after all, we write of George W. Bush as a former president, not as "public speaker and aspiring author". Youth contests may not demonstrate notability as an academic, but a record meriting mention from Science is independently notable among those who follow them. BLP1E does not apply, because this is not about a single event but several rather different contests spanning several years (a decade, if you include recent ones) — AFAIK Reid Barton is the only person to have such a great record in both mathematics and programming contests, let alone a perfect score at IMO and first place at IOI. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the purposes of BLP1E I would count all the math contests as a single "event." As I said, my reading of the policies is that we should be extremely conservative about having articles on people who might only be known for something they did in their youth. The subject is not notable in the non-wikipedia sense, does not meet the notability standard for academics, and any GPG-style notability is moderated by BLP1E. Weighing all those things, I don't believe we should have an article on the subject yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the exceptional candidates of IMO. Notable, IMHO. --bender235 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails PROF. The Morgan, IMO and Putnam are student competitions, not professional awards, as noted above. They may be a correlated to future achievement so there is a better than average chance that this person may meet PROF in the future, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL says don't try to anticipate this. There may be a case for general notability based on coverage of the IMO in the popular press, but this seems dubious at best. For some reason these competitions don't get much attention in the media. The analogy with sports competitions fails for this reason; for some reason these do attract attention in the media.--RDBury (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The appropriate test for inclusion seems not to be WP:PROF, but rather in this case WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The exposee in Science on the subject of the article easily meets these requirements. In addition, the subject seems to be clearly of essential interest to those researching mathematics competitions, as he is the first-ever four-time IMO gold medalist, and one of only seven people ever to achieve the maximum number of wins in the Putnam. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does WP:BLP1E relate to your analysis? It seems like, following that text, we could mention the wins in the articles on the IMO and the Putnam exam, if the encyclopedic interest is only in the fact that he has won those contests multiple times. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are other articles in the IMO/Putnam genre for which a WP:BLP1E argument might be stronger, but here I think we would lose something by merging mention of the scores to the main IMO and Putnam articles. The subject performed singularly in multiple competitions, including the Putnam, the IMO, and the IOI, not just one or the other. So WP:BLP1E should not be treated as a mandate, but rather as a guiding principle. In this case, I believe that organizing this information into a separate article about the subject brings his singular achievement more clearly into focus. In addition, the ancillary facts about the subjects life, as discussed in the Science article, do seem relevant to developing a complete biographical picture of the subject as something of a polymath. While this doesn't directly influence the notability of the subject, it is unusual enough that I think it deserves some mention rather than being cut so that the remainder of the article can be made to fit multiple merge targets. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I follow you, although we don't agree on the overall judgment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Essentially by Sławomir Biały's argument above. However the article needs a rewrite, some of the discussed sources here are currently still missing in the article and some of the curent content is not accurate or at least misleading. Barton is not the top winner of IMO medals, that's currently Christian Reiher.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a book referencing him a number of times: 'Count Down: Six Kids Vie for Glory at the World's Toughest Math Competition By Steve Olson' Most notably page 117 says that of the 119 individuals on US teams as of the 42nd Olympiad no one was as accomplished as Reid Barton. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true, as Nsk92 points out above, that undergrad awards don't count toward satisfying WP:PROF, but I would propose that he passes under general notability guidelines. The Putnam carries a prestige at the national level far outdistancing most types of recognition at the undergrad level, which most people outside the world of mathematics do not necessarily appreciate. This is only partially reflected in the heft of its article here at WP. Moreover, Barton is one of only a handful of people (seven actually, according to our WP page) to have ever attained 4-time-fellow status. Coupled with his unusual success in winning other named awards and prizes, all of which have their own dedicated articles here at WP (e.g. 4-time-gold at the International Mathematical Olympiad and winning the Morgan Prize) and the fact that there's a dedicated article about him in one of the world's most prestigious science journals (Mackenzie, D. (2001) IMO's Golden Boy Makes Perfection Look Easy, Science 293(5530), 597.), I find it difficult to see how this person is not notable under WP:GNG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an academic directory. The topic is notable and that is sufficient. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slawomir Bialy and Agricola44. Barton does not meet WP:PROF, but I do think he meets the GNG. Ozob (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Win 4 times gold medal at IMO is absolutely exceptional event ! Such guy of course should be noted. And he is the first to do it. Alexander Chervov (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, as amply demonstrated above. Most of the content consists of laudatory trivia and is neither notable nor verifiable via secondary sources. Regardless of one's opinion of the difficulty of winning IMO, Putnam, etc they are not independently notable. Also, since Wikipedia is not a directory, arguments about "completeness of coverage" and "red links in IMO articles" seem ill-advised (such red links can be created — and sometimes they are — each time a book or paper is cited; the best solution is to de-link). Arcfrk (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements made in the article are currently supported by secondary sources, so your post doesn't quite jibe with me. Perhaps you haven't looked at the article since you first raised this issue at WT:WPM? There were, at that time, some issues with the citation style that obscured the references, but these have mostly been resolved now. Also, I don't think anyone here is arguing on the basis of completeness of coverage, nor was the issue of redlinks in IMO articles even raised here. It was raised at WT:WPM, but not presented as a reason to keep the article. Most of the keep votes here are based on the argument that the subject of the article is notable, as evidenced by coverage in secondary sources (currently the Science article and a book with non-trivial coverage of the subject). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Comment. Each of the awards you mentioned has its own dedicated WP page (see above), so they are indeed notable for our purposes. And I sense that some here are unaware that Science is among the half-dozen most prestigious scientific publications in the world. Having a dedicated write-up in that journal essentially makes one notable ipso facto. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Tampa General Hospital

The result was closed early: withdrawn/snowball keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

See OTRS ticket 2010063010027064, which is an email from a PR consultant. Shawn, from PR Watchdog, has waived the privacy of his communication to us, and asked that this article be deleted because: "It's grossly incorrect and was not commissioned or approved by the hospital." I am making the deletion discussion on his behalf, and I myself will be abstaining. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - As the nominator on behalf of Shawn, I am abstaining. My opinion should not be counted, however Shawn's, as the nominator, should. I have informed Shawn of the location of the debate, and shown him the basics of our deletion policy and arguments to avoid. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think such large hospitals are usually notable and meet WP:GNG. This one in particular is ranked in several specialties by US News & World Report here. If there are statements that are inaccurate, reliable sources can be presented and the article can be appropriately corrected. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not required to have our articles "commissioned or approved" by their subjects. To the extent that it's "grossly incorrect", their PR man needs to tell us why so that we can (drum roll please) correct it. Mandsford 16:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all of the facts in this article can be found on the hospital's own fact sheet on its web site. If there are a few items in this article that are inaccurate, it should be possible to deal with them by normal editing. I have also checked all the prior revisions of this article, and I didn't see anything in them that looked that bad. The nature of the problem raised in the OTRS ticket is unclear to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the well explained reasoning above especially Metro's. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is officially the most ridiculous article deletion reference I have seen. Why the heck should we care what the hospital thinks? If it doesn't like the material (or thinks it is incorrect), the hospital should be a good community member and correct the information. Frank0051 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Strategies

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

No secondary sources discussing this organization, none found via Google. All I found were passing mentions. Apparently non-notable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Huon's statement. I read the article and it's clear to me that if they were asked to testify before both the US House and the Senate the organization is clearly notable.DSPolicy1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC). — DSPolicy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are certainly reliable sources mentioning this organization. But if you look at the sources, they are actually about the people involved, who are notable in their own right. For example, in the cited congressional testimony by Philip Heymann, his credentials were given as a professor, not as a member of this organization. Testimony and interviews with Mathea Falco mention in passing that she is president of this group, and then go on to what she has to say.[13] An op-ed in the Washington Post by Falco and Heymann is about policy and does not mention the organization Drug Strategies.[14] Aside from a mention by Donna Shalala, it does not look as if the group itself is notable. The notability requirement is significant coverage ABOUT the organization - which I couldn't find. I could change my mind if shown more relevant sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on this kind of thing but having read through the article and clicked on the sources this organization is clearly more notable than 90% of stuff on wikipedia. Living in the D.C. metro I have some good friends who work for Congressional committees and I can tell you they vet testimony very closely. Furthermore when you read about who is asking them to undertake their studies it reads like a list of the most important American philanthropic funds; maybe I'm taking this personally as a member of a non-profit, but just because an organization doesn't profit financially from their work doesn't mean that they don't serve an notable, important purposes.--TyraStnx (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — TyraStnx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I don't doubt that Drug Strategies does good work and knows important people - but by the relevant guidelines, that's not enough. Rather surprisingly, I couldn't find anybody writing about Drug Strategies itself. I also don't doubt there's less notable stuff on Wikipedia, but that's no excuse, either. Huon (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have said, there is coverage that mentions this institute while talking about some of its people, but I can't find any sources that are about the institute itself. Thus I think it fails WP:CORP. It's a close call for me, and if someone could find even one significant reliable source about this institute, I might change my mind. I admit it's a bit difficult Googling a title like that. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Kitchens

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

Contested prod. I'm not quite sure what policy to cite to motivate the deletion of this; possible candidates are WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N. The title says it all, a temporary kitchen is a kitchen that is, well, temporary. Too trivial to warrant an encyclopedic article about it. Also unreferenced except one promotional link and two external sites that do not contain the word "kitchen", never mind "temporary". Pgallert (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find the phrase "temporary kitchen" used in conjunction with home renovations. However, I can find no substantive treatment of temporary kitchens with respect to the food services indstry as written about in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom that the subject is basically trivial. It adds nothing to our knowledge of kitchens, or food service, to know that sometimes there is a need to set up temporary kitchens. Created by a SPA but I don't understand why; I really don't see the point of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw. Will update talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dietrich

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

This reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia topic. I don't see exactly why the guy is notable. Based on the other edits of the user and the apparent WP:COI, I'm going to call this article an autobiography, and the account WP:SPA. — Timneu22 · talk 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear. We feel that his contributions to open source, digital humanities software is substantial through his work with the Mukurtu Archive and work like Public Secrets (a Webby award nominee). There's a few more references we could add to support this. Are there things that could be changed/removed to make this more of an encyclopedia article?

The deletion policy notes, "requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject" Wendy Seltzer provides a solid critique; there's others (e.g., the BBC) that could be added to support Craig's work in software representing non-western cultural protocols.

Thanks for your time and input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usc vectors (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogeophysics

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

Bogus. Used for promoting commercial event which was spammed to various unrelated groups. Created by one user, no valid references, and consists of crank/fictional theories and methodologies Ms7821 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Ms7821 is incorrect on two points. Firstly, a cursory search of subject header from the linked posting shows named artists are linked to the various groups to which were posted through concerns with art, free software, and open hardware. Secondly, the event is not-for-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22edien (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC) — 22edien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Being non-profit does not establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 22edien: I only referenced the spam because it shows the article being used as promotion (the article didn't exist until just before the email was sent). The real problem with this article is its notability and verifiability (see WP:MADEUP). Ms7821 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete _ I see no treatment of this is reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Psychogeophysics is referenced on the cited socialfiction.org site (which has strong links with psychogeography), and also with reference to workshops hosted by the transmediale festival in Berlin, Germany and by Aarhus University, Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickledx (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) — Pickledx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Looks to me like a cross between utter rhubarb (I nearly put b******s) and spam. It might benefit from translation into English, but I doubt it. The sole reference given is to a site connected with the 'conference' being plugged. 'A novel discipline' is a description given. A similar description could have been given to Surrealism in its infancy - and had Wikipedia been around then the article would have not been kept. In some future time (but hopefully not in a 'city in ruins'), this discipline may achieve note. Till then, no. Peridon (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Peridon, this is utter nonsense. The given external links are either irrelevant to the subject or totally nuts. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lustenberger

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

I can find no evidence of him having played for Lucerne, and his other club appearances are not enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Due to the absence of significant coverage, he also fails WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I proposed the article for deletion because he had never played in a league higher than the second level of Swiss football (Challenge League). However, I found that he did play in the second round of the 2007–08 Swiss Cup against Super League club FC Thun. Would that be sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE? Jogurney (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on if SC Cham is fully pro as well. If it is, he passes WP:FOOTYN, and should be kept. A quick look at the clubs article suggests that it isn't fully pro, but that's far from definitive. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. He is notable enough by WP:ATHLETE standards in my eyes to merit an article. Giant Snowman 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, can you provide a source for his appearances for Lucerne? I nominated this article because wasn't able to find any sources to support that he had played for Lucerne's first team. If he did, he obviously passes WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His profile, which was the basis for the creation of the article and showed notability, has been removed from Football.ch...I can find no other source. Giant Snowman 23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Swiss Football Association has retracted his profile, and there is no other source to support its contents, I think its safe to assume that the data it provided was not accurate. Since SC Cham play in the Third division, his league appearances aren't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE, and the cup appearance does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right - no sources = no notability. Delete Giant Snowman 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about an athlete who at most played in one cup match against a pro team. I was unable to find sources for this person which would satisfy WP:GNG, so I believe he is non-notable. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim grove

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

A soccer coach who is not notable under Wikipedia Notability Policy. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 12:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
completely rework and wikify if sources exist, preferably delete. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one source provided doesn't look like enough to show notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoidal Skyscraper

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

Architectural project which was never realised which appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 12:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to that conclusion? The Google Books search alone shows substantive discussion of this topic in multiple sources (e.g., [15],[16],[17],[18]). There are some additional Google Books results from which it is difficult to tell, in the snippets that are visible, the amount of coverage in those particular sources, but those still quite clearly show cites to journal articles that are clearly about the Helicoidal Skyscraper (e.g., [19],[20]). So please explain your evaluation of the sources you reviewed, and your decision to take this to AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sorces you indicate are however not independent of the subject. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my issue. I myself am not entirely sure that it is non-notable, but all the full length articles on the subject seems to have been written by those involved in designing it, and the other coverage seems to be mentions in passing. It's very hard to tell just from snippets, and I'd prefer someone to either find a web source which provides independent significant coverage or get their hands on a paper source. However, I understand why there may be a case to keep this. Of course, planned buildings can be as notable as completed structures. Claritas § 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean; many of the references are closely related to the architect's own discussions, but the referenced notice by Pevsner, the pre-eminent architectural historian of the 20th century, should help, and there are in fact a number of (short) independent references uncovered by Google. I suspect there are more in dead-tree sources, given the time of the project proposal, but they will require a specialized library. I may have something myself, but most of my library's in boxes while renovations take place. Acroterion _(talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in that it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. It's about a particular architectural concept for a building, and not just a particular edifice that was planned but not built. Mandsford 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "never realised" isn't a criteria for deletion, and there's plenty of reliable sourcing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pevsner is a reliable and independent source. Some of the other independent sources indicated by postdlf would be worth including in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand using sources cited here. A major, influential project by a notable architect. There are many influential-but-unbuilt buildings, like Wright's The Illinois (inspiration for the Burj Khalifa) or the unbuildable, purely conceptual Walking City by Archigram. Pevsner is an ironclad, independent source and clear indication of notability, supported by considerable coverage as indicated by Postdlf, much of it independent of the subject. Acroterion _(talk) 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with postdlf. This ref. is self-explanatory. [21]AWHS (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaids in popular culture

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

Indiscriminate collection of information. AJRG (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not indiscriminate (a word that refers to a lack of information to discriminate between one entry on a list and the next). An "indiscriminate list" generally refers to a list of blue links, not as common now as it once was. It is, however, totally unsourced, and if nothing is added, then this one can sink to the bottom. In some cases, it's not appropriate for an article about pop culture references to be merged into an article about classical references, and this would be one of those cases. Hence, we have Hercules in popular culture so that we can keep Kevin Sorbo and Disney cartoons apart from the classical myth of Hercules or Heracles. Mandsford 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not at all indiscriminate. Could do with improvement but that's not a reason to delete. Given that several books exist that cover this in some detail, e.g. this and this, it's a perfectly reasonable, and sourceable, subject for an article.--Michig (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering to improve it? The article's been here a while and doesn't seem to have progressed much. Indiscriminate in that there appear to be no criteria for inclusion beyond the word "mermaid", no critical analysis and no second or third party viewpoints. Where, for example, is any mention of mermaid hoaxes? Wikipedia already has an article on P.T.Barnum's Fiji Mermaid, which appeared in the X-Files ("Humbug," Season 2, Episode 20). AJRG (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there are problems with the article, edit the article. Delete half or 80% of it or whatever if you want. But to delete the whole article is to say that no encyclopedic article could exist on this topic. It's a real topic, and these kinds of articles are split off the main articles for very good, practical reasons. All deleting this article would do is bring all the bad points of this article back to the main article as the same people who put some of the less than helpful content there would still want to put it somewhere. Clean it up if you think it needs it, but don't delete it and make the problem worse. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources, then let's see them. Perhaps Michig will help. AJRG (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have the books I linked to above, not really being big on mermaids, or it would probably be easy to improve this using them. If this is kept I'm certainly prepared to see what I can dig up on the web. There must be plenty around on Splash, The Little Mermaid, the mermaid in Peter Pan, Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid, etc, etc. The article should include discussion of how mermaids have been depicted, etc. The article's too "listy" at the moment, but fixable. Time for sleep now, though. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral although I believe a list of mermaid-centred media would be perfectly reasonable, usable and desirable, this isn't it. It is indiscriminate in the sense that incidental and virtually non-existent mermaid appearances are given the same weight as things like the film Splash, which is complete and utter bollocks and of little use to someone who actually wants to know about what is supposedly the subject of the list. Doubtless it will be kept and remain in the same soggily useless state, marvellous. Someone another 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the article useful, and too extensive to merge to Mermaid. It could use some work but that is no reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; apparently it was a copyvio. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical thinking

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

written as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, also violates WP:NOT#HOWTO. Is probably a speedyable duplicate of another article, but which? — Timneu22 · talk 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mearns Leader

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

Non-notable publication. No reason given for removal of prod tag. John of Reading (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local newspaper with no claim to notability. Maybe merits a mention in the article on Stonehaven, its home town, but not an article in its own right. --Deskford (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Prescott#Criticism and controversies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Temple

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

This is already in John Prescott and is just a fork really, i recommend deletion mark nutley (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Prescott#Criticism and controversies per biographies of living persons "one event" rule - I can find no evidence of coverage of this person outside the context of the Prescott relationship. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I`m a redirect also btw, per what Gene has said above mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems reasonable. I'd leave the history on the off chance it's needed, but seems to be a BLP1E. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pyron

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

As a post-doc who has been promised a job as an assistant prof in 2011, and with a single digit h-index, there is no way this person will be passing WP:PROF anytime soon. (Although his career is somewhat more accelerated than most...) Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What h-index is acceptable? If you look on Google Scholar for RA Pyron (his traditional article listing) you have some that have 12 and 13 citations. Also he'se been cited by in many news media artilces, generally ones about snakes, as being an expert. Thanks for your response.

-- RandorXeus. 15:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each regular participant in these AfDs has a different opinion on the value of using the h-index, and of the number needed to pass. Basically, one would have to discover the average h for full professors in that field. For example, Dolph Schluter has an h around 59. J.J. Bull has an h around 51. Brian Charlesworth has an h around 61. (I am using Google Scholar, but it would be better to use WebofKnowledge if one has access.) Since these guys are big names, perhaps an h of about half theirs, around 25, would be sufficient in evolutionary biology. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the information. I'll use it in the future. -- RandorXeus. 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The GScholar search returns 14 hits; having an article cited 12 or 13 times does not constitute a "significant contribution" to the field, and most articles have far fewer hits. He may be notable some day, but right now he does not pass WP:PROF. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's reasonable. I didn't know what the standard was. I can't say I truly understand any of the notability guidlines. It seems like they were written then amended because a few people who were notable did not necessarily meet those guidlines. I vote delete as the primary author. -- RandorXeus. 19:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a postdoc for now, fairly low citability, no significant awards. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom's arguments are conlcusive – this is an uncontroversial delete. I'll just add here that his WoS h-index is only 5, which we would not even consider for a fairly low-citation field (which evo-bio definitely is not). This person could be notable in the future, but right now this article is just WP:PROMOTION. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A named assistant professorship is not the type of position that WP:PROF#C5 was intended to cover, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources and citations provide no evidence of this guy passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if he somehow becomes notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janie Diaz

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

No reliable sources to indicate notability. Google News and Google Book searches result in zero hits. APK whisper in my ear 07:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self published poet, written by marketing account. Delete. Secretlondon (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any assertion that would support notability if sourced. Will be blocking creator after this edit. Daniel Case (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't even attempt to say why the person is notable. The person isn't. — Timneu22 · talk 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable resource of writer's work do exist: Indian Summer, Out of the Dog House, and Ready to Sleepwear. She was also the cofounder of Wreck Magazine in 2006 but it only lasted one issue. 12@Elden, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.106.71 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider reblocking user. The above anon has no other edits other than to this discussion. PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new account, User:JosePrado, just made this edit. From the article: "Janie met Jose Prado in 2006 after moving to the Wilshire District of Los Angeles, California...Janie, Jose, and [their daughter] currently live in North Scottsdale, Arizona." APK whisper in my ear 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bsanders246 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable poetry credits Vartanza (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brandy Star Profile

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

Non-notable unauthorized biography —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unofficial bio CD, of which there were way too many in the early 2000's which were only designed to sucker in fans to buy unofficial merchandise disguised as official by being stuck in the same slot as the artist's actual discs at stores such as Sam Goody and Wal-Mart. Completely non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I assume the people behind the article were acting in good faith, thinking it was an official release. Even so, the shysters behind items like this don't deserve attention years later for their instantly outdated and discredited products. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SRM University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srm group of educational institions

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - It is notable alright. It is one of the biggest private universities in Tamil Nadu with thousands of students and lots of WP:GNG. But this article is essentially a rehash of SRM University and reads like a reproduction of a college brochure.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SRM Group of Colleges, Chennai and SRM University. utcursch | talk 08:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles 01:10

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

WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; can't it be A1? — Timneu22 · talk 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Ride (Skream album)

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

Non-notable comp. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - part of a DJ series listed on the Watch the Ride disambig page. None of them are notable nor is the series itself. Each release could be briefly mentioned at each respective DJ biography page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Worldovision

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

Non-notable web-based beauty pageant. Unable to find any third party sources that meet the requirements of WP:WEB to verify the article's claim of being the most publicized web beauty contest in the world. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree subject is non notable. Mostly self-referenced, stub quality article. Non encyclopedic tone. Needs serious work and references to come near a keep. "tk" websites listed on Wikipedia article as "twice as likely" to be "phishing or spam;" origin: New Zealand (free internet registrations). Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Bill. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Hill

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Bill. The fictional setting of a major TV series that has run for decades at least needs to be covered in the article about the series and we at least need a redirect here. --Michig (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig, as PROD decliner. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't WP:verifynotability but the series article could use some help with some of this info.Shooterwalker (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Doctor Who in Australia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas

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

Non-notable award for possibly non-notable organisation. No reliable sources, nor assertion of notability. No gNews hits for "Double Gammas" or "Double Gamma". Google hits only return other fansites, blogs and facebook. Has been tagged for notability since its creation two years ago. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Why is this happening again? It's a twenty six year old national award. Albeit a fan award. It's as notable as any other such award, and is currently in its latest round for judging. What other sources are relevant? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. long living does not make them notable. other such awards are also non-notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire category of not just fan awards, but Australian fan awards. Are you hostile to their existence too or merely singling Doctor Who fandom out? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Category:Australian science fiction awards? Unfortunately I'd have to say yes. Of the six distinct awards named in that category, two appear to be former incarnations of a current award, one is a subset of a current award, and only one has any reliable sources at all (the Aurealis Awards, although all the WP:RSs are all in sub-pages and the whole set could do with a decent merging). Seriously, I love Doctor Who as much as the next sci-fi die-hard, but we're merely hostile to the existence of unverifiable articles here at Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't identify yourself with "we" or "Wikipedia", it's just the two of you tagging and re-tagging. I'm not pleased at having to argue this all over again and I'll be interested to see you continue this spurious argument on to the Hugos and Nebulas. Wake me when we get there. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The Double Gammas are one of the more important awards in Australian SF fandom where Dr Who fandom has traditionally been strong. It makes sense to cover them here as they have historical value in terms of those communities. Alternatively I can see the general content about them being merged with Doctor Who in Australia, which has discussion about Doctor Who fandom in Australia, although I'd rather see them stand alone due to weight issues, as that's a more general article. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge - A merge to a more general article would eliminate the problem of having only self-published sources. If reliable sources become available there is nothing to stop the page from being reestablished.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's agreement with Bibly's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fan award. Then redirect to digamma. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if it is the most important Australian Doctor Who fandom award in the whole wide world, that doesn't strike me as being terribly notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The South Australian Club alone's been in all the local print media, even a notable defunct one. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex M. Early

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

Non-notable business person. No references to reliable sources. Nothing of significance found at Google or Google News about him or his company. MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reference is a Youtube video? Stub length, non notable....Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete Not notable. --mboverload @ 05:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marian Call. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got to Fly

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

Non notable album fails WP:NALBUM I redirected to the artist but this was reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information, the cover of the album, and the album credits. If there is any more information I could add please elaborate. I've seen album pages that have remained on Wikipedia with far less information.Cyantre (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not the amount of information that's the issue, it's the references - WP:NALBUMS says an album requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So I think that's what you need to aim for - try to find such coverage in reliable sources and add it as references -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it that I've come across several album pages with no references and far less information that haven't been marked for deletion? Case in point, every album page for the artist Jonathan Coulton. Marian Call is an independent artist, so any album reviews would be linked to iTunes, Amazon, and/or CD Baby.Cyantre (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mo ainm~Talk 13:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's probably just that nobody checking for unreferenced articles has noticed them - it might not seem fair, but it's a bit like being caught speeding and trying to get off by complaining "But other people have got away with it". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what references more do you possibly need for a simple album listing? Independent artists don't have their music rated by Rolling Stone or Spin, so should that make the information invalid? It seems rather biased. Cyantre (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't really offer any more than WP:NALBUMS. If the album can't satisfy that, then I'm afraid it is unlikely to be eligible for inclusion - but that's something the admin who closes this discussion will have to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what it states there and this article does seem eligible for inclusion based on the context, though the user who marked it for deletion did so before I had the chance to flesh the article out a bit more and upload the cover art to Wikimedia, and one of the criteria the user who initially flagged this article wanted was an image.Cyantre (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does cultural relevance count for anything? The album has been cited numerous times on BadAstronomy, has had fan videos made of some of it's songs and ties in pretty heavily to Joss Whedon's Firefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasmonks (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first stab at adding sources relevant to the album as requested in WP:NALBUMS. Please correct as you see fit.--AAltair (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added and tweaked the reference list based on what you added and suggestions from Marian too. Cyantre (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I suppose to add a source that verifies that the album is also available for digital download if Wikipedia does not allow links to web-sites that link to a page with the express purpose of selling items? Cyantre (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being available for digital download is not really of sufficient notability. What we need is reliable third-party references - i.e. sources that have independently talked about the album. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added six different sources where people are talking about the album, as well as cited references where required. Cyantre (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good - I'll have a look over them a bit later when I have a bit of time Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope this article won't be deleted, especially now that there are a bunch of sources, reviews, and cover art for the album.Cyantre (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still undecided on this. Of the two refs in the References section, the first just confirms that the album exists, and the second is someone selling it. Of the reviews in the "Reviews" section, two are blatantly blogs, two (the "Geekdad" ones) look like social networking/bloggy things of some sort by a private individual, and the others are sites I've never heard of - my not hearing of them isn't conclusive, of course, but I'm just not seeing anything written by mainstream music sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't a mainstream artist, she is very much an independent artist that achieved acclaim through the Internet and social networking as the main article states. You're not going to find any of her songs in the Billboard Top 100, or an article on her by Rolling Stone. As someone stated earlier the information is completely relevant to the artist as well as fans of her music. She has strong connections to both the television series Firefly and Battlestar Galatica and is very well known among the community, and was one of the most requested acts for w00tstock. This studio album is as referenced as it possibly could be, pulling information and reviews from all over the Internet. The first source that you said just proves the albums exists is a source because it shows that the song 'It Was Good for You Too' is a new recording, which is why it is a relevant source. The other source confirms that the information about the release of the album being limited in physical availability and initially being available to purchase as that particular fan-convention. Each source confirms the information stated, so I really don't see the problem.

As I've stated earlier I've seen hundreds of album articles far less detailed than this and with no references at all. On top of that I read through the list of articles that have been marked for deletion with the WP:NALBUM tag and every one that I saw was either for some irrelevant single or a bootleg. This is a studio album with plenty of reviews and relevant information crediting everyone who worked on the album.Cyantre (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, since the album had a limit physical release not everyone will have access to the liner notes, making the information in this article even more relevant.Cyantre (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I do appreciate the difficulties with independent artists, and I'm not sure the Wikipedia policy guidelines cover them adequately - hence my inability to decide either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artiste's article as per WP:NALBUMS. This really hasn't risen to the level of notability required for a stand-alone article, not enough sales, not enough independent reviews in reliable sources etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholeheartedly disagree, this artist has risen to quite a significant level of notability within the independent music genre. The guidelines are incredibly biased towards independent artists and the inconsistency within the Wikipedia staff is appalling, as I could easily pull up at least a dozen independent album articles with little to no sources that have far less information than this article provides.Cyantre (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't queried whether the artist is notable or not. The case is that the album isn't notable enough on its own for a standalone article. That's why a redirect is entirely appropriate in this case. Pulling up other examples is pointless - other articles don't affect this one, policy and guidelines affect this article, and the policy for albums that haven't risen to a sufficient level of notability is that they get redirected to the artistes page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silkski

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

This article seems to be about a relatively unknown record producer, who has produced music for a couple of artists. However, there isn't significant coverage of this musician from reliable sources. Discogs.com is not one. With hardly any notability, Silski fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Silkski Article:

This artist is not relatively unknown!!!!!!! He has been known for years and have contributed to the hip hop industry in many ways. He has done more than merely a few songs for a few artist. He has been on soundtracks, produced platnium records..such as bloods and crips albums, Ice T Return of the Real...and Beavis and Butt Head (Do America). This article has good sources on the page and is cited. I do not see why or what the purpose is for this article being deleted. Every statement of the albums this artist is on has a source to back the statement.Some things he is credited under his government name (Jerome Evans) and others are just his stage name (Silkski). If discogs is not a reliable source...I wonder is allmusic.com an reliable source? If it is not...then give me a couple of days and I will have a source, rather it is Ascap or Emi to back up the references. Everything about this artist on this article is true...and I attend to do my best to fix any problem that comes along that will help this article stay up.L. E. Evans 09:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)--L. E. Evans 09:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

According to WP:MUSIC "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search, and BMI Repertoire Search".

Within the Silkski article I have sources from Allmusic, ASCAP, Billboard, ArtistDirect, EMI, cdUniverse, and copyrights. For the records that have gone beyond gold and platnium, such as the Bloods and Crips, and Beavis and Butthead; I have provided at least three sources for each record to prove that this artist/producer is well known. Please review the Silkski article so that it could be removed from the request of deletion. Also please note that Silkski's real name is Jerome Evans and most of his credits are under his official name. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need reliable sources..here are a few

Copycat

(The Motion Picture Soundtrack)

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,223658,00.html under credits you will see his stage name "Silkski"

copyrights for Techno Boy http://www.faqs.org/copyright/i-dont-speak-the-language-and-1920-other-titles-part-002-of/

Beavis and Butt-head Do America

(The Motion Picture Soundtrack)

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,235635,00.html under credits you will see his name (Jerome Evans)

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/original-soundtrack/beavis-and-butt-head-do-america/191182 Jerome Evans (Silkski) is listed as a producer for this Soundtrack on Billboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.3.168 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangin' on Wax

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,54052,00.html under credits you will see his name (Jerome Evans)

copyrights for C-sick http://www.faqs.org/copyright/a-catalog-of-performance-objectives-criterion-referenced-2/

Copyrights for K's up http://www.faqs.org/copyright/i-dont-speak-the-language-and-1920-other-titles-part-002-of/

75.94.3.168 (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VI: Return of the Real - Ice-T

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476

Silkski is listed as an producer for this album on Billboard.com

Bangin' on Wax, Vol. 2: The Saga Continues

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/blood-crips/bangin-on-wax-vol-2-the-saga-continues-collectors/570205

Silkski (Jerome Evans) is listed as an producer for this album on Billboard.com 75.94.3.168 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock the Bells

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800181/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and New Sources Added to Silkski Article

I have updated and added reliable sources to the article Silkski, which proves that this article is within WP:MUSIC standards.

L. E. Evans 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has reliable sources and is within WP:MUSIC standards. The article shows notability from: Allmusic, ASCAP, Billboard, ArtistDirect, and EMI; which clearly passes WP:MUSIC standards. L. E. Evans (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are a number of reliable sources which have mentioned this person as a KKK branch leader, as the founder of The New order, as the organiser of rallies, as well as the court case. While a number of sources are local, that the person is also covered in more than one published book is enough to meet our notability guidelines. The article does, however, need sourcing. We cannot have biographies of living people which are unsourced. The article must be reliably sourced within 24 hours of the closure of this AfD or it will be deleted. SilkTork *^YES! 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis McGiffen

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

fails WP:BIO; any notability is from his arrest and conviction, thus failing WP:BLP1E Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Southern Poverty Law Center (or Morris Dees#Innovative legal strategy). The article is poorly written, but there are a few items supporting a hint of notability. A 1994 article in Time briefly mention McGiffen as heading the Illinois chapter of the Knights of the KKK, just as his group was splitting from Thomas Robb. Another reference also refers to him as a Grand Dragon of the Illinois Knights of the KKK and he is mentioned many times in a book written by an FBI agent and an FBI informant (they refer to him as the Illinois Aryan Nations state leader). There are a few other GBooks hits. An ADL reference refer to him as a leader in the Aryan Nations. I don't claim that this is a media report on which to build a claim of notability, but it does summarize his involvement with the crime alluded to in the article. GNews hits show mostly local news reports, but there was one in the Washington Post. Location (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 901 google hits, I don't think it's notable. T3h 1337 b0y 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've noticed that you've been recommending keep or delete on solely the basis of GHits in virtually all of your AfD recommendations. Please note that Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid criteria states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online ... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links." WP:GNUM and WP:GHITS may also be relevant. Location (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grand Dragon in the KKK, multiple stories with in-depth coverage. A major political figure in the racist fringe, meets notability.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robot After All

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

Fan-made remix album, non-notable. Sources include first-party and wikis. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, G4 (recreation of deleted material). postdlf (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reposted for at least the third time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman). I believe it has also been speedily deleted under various alternate titles at least once before. The problem is sources. As he is anon/persona-no-grata, its difficult to find any sources to his existence, except a couple of DVD's on Amazon and a few blogs. Secondly, he didn't get out of Stockholm much, let alone Sweden, so the extensive WP:RS if they exist are in Swedish. I conclude that the only practical way we could address the need for an article is if one existed on Wikipedia Scandinavia - which doesn't. Summary: Lack of sources = fail of notability criteria Trident13 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Note that the {{prod}} tag should not have been removed here. Without any new significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, there is no reason to even have this discussion for a third time. Anonymously-produced DVDs of an anonymous rider in black doing stunts under the name "Ghost Rider" do exist on Amazon and Netflix, but that alone fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). The meme whereby every time somebody in Sweden sees a motorcyclist in black (a common sight) doing stunts (a common sight) and thinks that might be the Ghost Rider might be an interesting subject, but the meme has never been the subject of any coverage in reliable sources. This needs to be salted so we don't have to keep re-debating it. If a genuine reliable source comes along some day, an article can be proposed then. --Dbratland (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Ruzittu

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

Ruzittu did not made his professional debut, i.e. He is not a professional, notable footballer. Matthew_hk t c 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 02:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to the lack of professional play and significant coverage, this player fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 02:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied to user:Keithamato/Principles of the Well Managed Bank. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of the Well Managed Bank

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear what motivated this, even if it hadn't been stated in an edit summary. Unfortunately, that makes it POV-pushing — an attempt to lay out a Wikipedia editor's opinion as to what the specific principles of good bank management are. I give you the words of the third source that I found when looking to see whether an article on well managed banks or even bank management was possible from this:
Walter Bagehot […] is said to have coined the question-begging aphorism that "a well managed bank needs no capital, whilst no amount of capital can save an ill managed bank". […] How "well managed" and how "ill managed", and what about all the intermediate conditions? It is a truism that "good management" is the key to everything, but who is to be the infallible judge and guarantor of management quality? Most banks are a mixture of good and not so good management and, as circumstances and top teams change, are managed better in some eras than others; not that we can always tell the difference at the time.
— Eddie Cade FCIB (1999). Managing banking risks. Lessons Professional Publishing. pp. 26–27. ISBN 9781888998634.
You may not want to take my word for it that it's POV-pushing. So take Eddie Cade's word instead. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. This is quite a ways from becoming an encyclopedia article, and does read like original research. I am, however, somewhat surprised that we do not yet have an article on bank management, which seems a valid subject, and at least some of this text might be salvageable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/incubate I agree with Smerdis that this article is not ready for prime time, too much like an essay, too much original research, not enough sourcing. However I also agree that an article on Bank management is needed and this could become that article. I am also bothered that it was PRODded six minutes after its creation. Why can't we learn to give people a little time to develop and improve their articles, rather than jumping in with an immediate deletion? --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Recipe (EP)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Demos are not notable, only source given is by the band themselves. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 02:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this case the demo really is a demo and it has not achieved notability. The existence of the demo could be mentioned at the album article for The Ghosts That Haunt Me, where these songs were later re-recorded. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantial additional sources have been identified in the course of this AFD and there have been no arguments for deletion (and numerous for retention) in the subsequent two weeks. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonjasufi

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

No substantial indication of notability for 3 months. All sources are first person or similarly not reliable sources Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 months! Shadowjams is on target here, good work. Jusdafax 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Click on the link to the article on his album and you'll see several sources linked, including Metacritic, which links to lots of reviews. See also the Allmusic biography. The following all come up in the first 2 pages of Google results for Gonjasufi, which makes the deletion nomination somewhat mystifying: BBC, Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, Pitchfork Media. Bringing articles like this to AFD without at least spending a few minutes looking for evidence of notability simply wastes the time of other editors. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)...or, worse, results in an article on a notable subject being deleted.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But an obviously notable one that already has sources (one URL was broken - I've fixed it). Why relist?--Michig (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick glance at the Metacritic page given by Michig is enough to see that this artist has generated enough coverage and reviews in reliable sources to warrant an article. Easily notable enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's on my todo list to add all these sources to the article. I haven't had time recently but will get round to it when I can.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now - see also the album article.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The pointers given by Michig show that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. treating as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide's cape

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

Notability. Already deleted once, a while back, so things might have changed. Chris (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted on my talk page, and I moved it here:

Hello there...
I think that Adelaide's Cape has enough notable sources/achievements to be included on Wikipedia now (BBC, The Independent, mainstream festival appearances confirmed etc). He has surely achieved as much as The Kabeedies, who have a page here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kabeedies Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Hope I'm discussing this in the right place?
Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that none of the independent references or sources you have given are actually about the band; they're all about the event. Let's see what other people think... Chris (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is exclusively about Adelaide's Cape, and links to statements about the festivals he's playing surely provide relevant references? I've added in a link to the Wychwood website where Adelaide's Cape is listed now too http://www.wychwoodfestival.com/line-up/bbc-introducing/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Matheson

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

fails WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE . less than 2 appearances on 2 TV series. the supplied link is dead and 1 hit in gnews [22]. it is difficult to verify this acting and directing career which is not covered in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if everything in the article is accepted at face value, it doesn't add up to notability. A couple of small parts on television and some gigs as "assistant to the director" at notable houses; his other acting and directing credits are in very small venues. The article has been neglected for years, as evidenced by the note that he "will star in" something in 2007! Google search finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. going no consensus to allow some space for improvement and tranbslation of sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Tinska

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

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability per WP:BIO according to the article and an (English) Google search. Sandstein 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Assistance of translating Serbian language sources [23][24][25] is needed else WP:UNKNOWNHERE may be this article's downfall. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly has a fair few sources, even if we can't translate them accurately. She's also well known in Serbia, it seems, and the article, while unsourced, isn't libellous or poorly written. Default to keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until we can get a better translation, etc. as there do appear to be reliable sources, and it doesn't make much sense to delete prematurely, if the shortcoming is our lack of knowledge at the moment and it is reasonably correctible Vartanza (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced BLP, no evidence the person meets the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might reconsider if the many Serbian sources found in Find sources receive translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per my comments above. Article is now undergoing cleanup. Expansion and sourcing have commenced. Additional help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep because nobody is in favor of deletion, and the nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion (see comment below) (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street Theme

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

Completely original research. 3 out of 4 sources on this page are not reliable (they appear to link to Youtube). Non-notable as well. Muppet Wiki also gives better info on this as well. Plus the article on the show's closing sequence was similar and was deleted a while back. This page is entirely uneccesary and useless to Wikipedia. trainfan01

Keep. I've added some reliable sources to the article. It could definitely use some attention, especially in the Uses within the series section, but this is not a reason to delete the article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song is clearly a notable part of modern culture. Article could be improved of course but not "useless." Borock (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i had trouble adding reliable sources, but its a single on multiple releases, written by a major childrens music composer, and is guaranteed permanently memorized by millions of people. i would have preferred it be built up at the joe raposo article and then when ready created as separate, but now that its here, it should stay and be improved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is still not linked from the article. I found looking the song up tricky, since it's actually titled "Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street," but also seems to be informally called "Sunny Days," "Theme from Sesame Street," "Sesame Street Opening Theme," etc. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The AFD tag wasn't added to the article until June 27th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This theme song is widely known and frequently referenced in popular culture. Themes songs are hard things to find deep references for, as it's not like people frequently write whole news articles or books about them. However, there are innumerable articles with titles that play on the name, it's frequently mentioned in articles, and I see at least four books on Google Books that are called "Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?" I think there's enough material available in reliable sources to write a short-but-sweet article around. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with most of what was said above. There is no doubt this theme song is notable, it's just a question of verifiable sources, and an article should not be deleted just because the current version of it does not have reliable sources. That just means it needs to be improved. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the article will remain for now. To make it sound more clearer, I will try and re-write some of the info. trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Snowball Keep One of the most famous theme songs in US television history. Someone should close this up. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers planets. redirecting but leaving histiry incase additional material is merited in the main article Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradron

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

Unsourced article about a fictional planet from a single episode of The Transformers (TV series). Non notable. Rm994 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Transformers planets. Significant enough to at least be mentioned. JIP | Talk 06:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JIP. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- while a merge would ordinarily not be a bad idea, I note that in this case it is not appropriate. This is because Paradron is already mentioned in sufficient depth at List of Transformers planets, and because there is exactly zero sourced content in this article so none of it is usable. Reyk _YO! 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Sunday Telegraph. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Track 100

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

The article is about a list published by a newspaper. I don't see why we should have an article that can focus only on a single POV.
It has to be updated yearly.

Delete it or at best merge it with The Sunday Telegraph Forty two^{You talkin' to me?} 04:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Merge with The Sunday Telegraph in a severely cut down version. Kudos to the creator of the article, though. This information is just better kept on the newspaper website and not Wikipedia. mboverload @ 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Atherton

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

Unsourced BLP for which I can't find any significant coverage (see Google results) beyond this primary source. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP articles must have sources. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Confederated_Tribes_of_Siletz_Indians. There's not enough context in this article to even determine whether or not this person is notable so I'm redirecting this as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Van Pelt

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

Only claim to notability seems to be as the father of Sam Van Pelt, whose biog is currently up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Van Pelt. I've done a fairly quick search, but I can't find anything to support the inclusion of this article (there are some genealogical refs, but that's not notable). I haven't gone for CSD, as it's the kind of subject that might possibly be sourceable outwith a Google search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Sam and Thomas van Pelt are mentioned in The Rogue River Indian War and its aftermath, 1850-1980, p. 13 (available at G-Books). However, I can't find more substantial coverage, just minor mentions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is little notable references to post these two men on Wiki, but I noticed their names on the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians with no description, and since these two men are my grandfathers I used what little information I could to bring any such information to their posthumous pages. With the history American Indians have these two men fought hard to try to keep the tribes of their ancestors alive, and apparently the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians hold Thomas and Sam in high regard for their support during that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But no hard feelings if you feel Thomas and Sam's pages HAVE to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to your ancestors, Urok89, verifiability is important for Wikipedia. Their importance should be noted by multiple independent and reliable sources. Furthermore, editing articles related to you is rather discouraged here, it is considered as a conflict of interest. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Confederated_Tribes_of_Siletz_Indians. There's not enough context in this article to even determine whether or not this person is notable so I'm redirecting this as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Van Pelt

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

The subject isn't clear to identify. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it stands it's close to a CSD:A7, because "important" isn't a good enough claim to notability. But a bit of searching does find some references which place him in context. This book suggests he was an early commentator on native American life. This account of his wife might be relevant (though it looks like it's only a local newspaper). This seems to get a mention in a few Oregon journals. All in all, that's probably not enough for notability, but I'll reserve judgment for a while in case anyone else can find anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Van Pelt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Greek Philosophy

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

As has been discussed in the past, a website is not enough to justify notability. A google search for this association yields three results, with the first two overlapping. The society does not seem to have any notability beyond its website and a mention on another "link" gathering site. There are three more publications on other sites, but nothing goes past the first page. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for the stubby state of this article as created. I have since expanded it a little. I suppose I have been getting complacent. This organization is responsible for numerous publications, and is located in the birthplace of philosophy. It is an international organization and considered to be a very strong organization insofar as the world of philosophy is concerned. A google scholar search revealed 46 results. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing your nomination?Greg Bard 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote, but how many of those 46 are (mostly self-reported) author affiliations? Some of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar search shows papers, but many places are papers who have been published by the IAGP, members of the IAGP, or a citation. I am not sure of the voracity of this company. There seems to be one paper that appears in most, and some are self-reported. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to say "veracity" rather than "voracity"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Veracity, not voracity. Sorry. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Minoushka

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation - the last of six with this problem. !! Justa Punk !! 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in the least bit notable. Mal Case (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above + fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Belmont

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation !! Justa Punk !! 00:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Mal Case (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Tyler

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation !! Justa Punk !! 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In no way notable. Mal Case (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Kyle

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation !! Justa Punk !! 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Nikki said. Mal Case (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Iliad of Woes

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Faith Is Lost 86.180.248.183 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina

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

The neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina are that of the country and not that of the city proper. Chris (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a reason to delete, as it's a problem that could be resolved by editing (and possibly moving) the page. snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if anything, this could be covered in Greenville, South Carolina. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XLERATOR

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

notability and COI concerns. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article. The references are all either spurious (e.g. #1 is about a rival product) or based on PR material, or do not qualify as reliable sources per WP policy. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites the websites of BBC, Western New York College, Slate, ABC, Discovery Channel, Crain's Chicago Business, Environmental Design and Construction, and other reliable sources. I honestly do not understand why it continues to be marked for deletion. This object is more notable than the Dyson Airblade, which does not seem to have the same problem. Helvetica13 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a spam article, without reliable sources, no proof of notability and probably created by someone with a serious conflict of interest. That's enough! andy (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Gifts: 12 New Sounds of Christmas

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, it does not appear to be notable and lacks encyclopedic content. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential R&B the Very Best of R&B: Spring 2005

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Haynes

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

Being a (senior) university lecturer and author of the odd published work does not equate to notability. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page does report her as head of the history department, though it is certainly unusual for a "senior lecturer" to hold such a position, as this level is below "reader" and "professor" in the British academic system. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Department head isn't enough, and I don't see enough citations in Google scholar to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. (I'm not convinced Google scholar is the right place to look for those citations, given her field, but if they were there then they should have shown up in higher numbers.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Turner Demo

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Rocks

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Development Foundation

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

I believe this non-profit organization fails the WP:ORG guidelines due to a lack of verifiable significant impact. Being a NGO does not, of itself, demonstrate notability. Apart from the one tangential mention in the Calcutta Telegraph article, I have been unable to find other sources using Google News. Fæ (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. And there is no significant independent coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. treat as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arkitects

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

Music producers who don't meet WP:GNG or any specific guideline. An article on Shawn A Campbell is also nominated for deletion. Claritas § 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Adams (performance artist)

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

Doesn't appear notable, sources seem questionable. I considered nominating this for WP:PROD, but given my admittedly lacking knowledge of this sort of subject I thought it better to get more community input. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Difficult case. He's not really very well known, but then, he is quite avant garde... He did perform at the Tata, which is a major institution. He has attracted some notice, but only in things like blogs, it look like. Really I could go either way on this. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit summaries here [26] indicate that the article is an autobiography. AllyD (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been shown at the Hayward Gallery (I changed to a direct link), the Arnolfini (go to artist names), and Tate Modern, all major UK art institutions. The references I checked were not blogs. The Centre of Attention is reputable and has a good biog.[27] Ty 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. airplay doesn't an article make so the delete side has better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vayden

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

Reason

Fails WP:BAND. I saw this article while on Page Patrol and its citations are as per my observation on its talkpage - not WP:RS and WP:V. It was WP:CSD'ed but on the talkpage, an editor stated this was "improvement over previous deletions" and that he would not oppose it at this AfD. If this improvement, it needs salt to go along with its failure to establish notability for a band. It uses blogs and what appears to be self-posted websites or ones without editorial oversight. --moreno oso (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - [28] and [29] represent coverage in local Phoenix media. Everything else I could find that would be from a reliable source is just concert listings. If there is some more coverage, then this would fall over to a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [30] and [31] represent national add placements on fifteen different major radio stations, which should be considered alongside Whpq's previous links to local Phoenix media coverage. I am the article's original author, and also dispute moreno oso's above misquotations of my words. I had said I would not oppose this article's deletion if I was unable to provide proper citations within one week, and since I have done so, I now strongly oppose this article's deletion. MetalMilitiaESP (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I was on the fence on whether or not it should actually kept, but since a source has been added confirming the band being on XM, I'm convinced. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as per MetalMilitiaESP. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial relaible independent sources. Proof of airplay is not proof of significance, many insignificant bands get some airplay. Notability is about being the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, and I'm not seeing that. That's probably why it's been deleted four times already. MetalMilitiaESP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who edited the article before its deletion and then recreated and is responsible for most of its content, including removing speedy tags. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should clarify things here. For one- I was the one who removed the speedy tag on this article, not the article creator (although they had placed the hangon tag). For another, being played on a major outlet, like XM, is an indicator of notability per WP:BAND criteria 11- "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. ". And lastly, I should point out that even though this had been speedy deleted before, this particular incarnation of the article was allowed to be re-created with permission from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 16 (which is honestly why I contested the speedy in the first place- they made an effort to follow the rules, and were told that their effort was sufficient to allow an article, and I felt that rewarding that with a speedy deletion was a bit of a WP:BITE when the creator seemed to be acting in good faith). Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only sources for content provided so far are local newspapers and blogs - nothing that shows any national or international importance. Also as already noted above, proof of airplay is not proof of notability: notability (see WP:N) means there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Airplay suggests you'd be able to find some decent national sources - so where are they? Hm? WP:SPA posting WP:SPAM sets off alarm bells. The article fails WP:HOLE: nothing in the article differentiates Vayden from the million other bands who try to put up Wikipedia articles on themselves. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxie Cotton

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation !! Justa Punk !! 00:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Nikki said, again. Mal Case (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCW Femmes Fatales

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/NCW Femmes Fatales

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

Contested prod. Completely fails WP:N and probably WP:ORG as well. Article created by Kacey Diamond in a blatant WP:COI violation. !! Justa Punk !! 00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Punk.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this a blatant COI violation? Horrorshowj (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by a worker with the promotion. !! Justa Punk !! 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Punk is wrong about who created the article, but there is a COI violation in the editing. Nevertheless this is not notable and fails most relevant rules. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant fail of WP:CORP and isn't notable. Mal Case (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Transit`s Active Fleet

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Guelph Transit`s Active Fleet

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

A list of city buses (not bus routes) running in Guelph, Ontario. Not notable enough for an article; the info could be included in Guelph Transit if desired but otherwise isn't worthy of an article. Canjth (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a direct copy of information from http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Guelph_Transit_Commission#Current_roster - including the red wikilinks. Another wiki is a poor source or reference. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article falls under blatant, unambiguous copyright violation in WP:CSD. I tagged it appropriately, but if anybody objects they can remove it (not that there is any reason to do so). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer I considered that this list might be too simple to be copyrightable (phonebook exception), but on balance I think that there is enough intellectual effort to qualify as WP:COPYVIO. The transit wiki does not appear to be released under a compatible license. If anyone disagrees that this list should not be subject to copyright, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review (and let me know). I would not quite A7 this. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bohemians Praha (Střížkov)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FK Bohemians Praha (Střížkov)

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

the only thing this article list is a very not notable enough summary and the players listMichael Jackson FOREVER!! (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - team has played in the top level of the Czech football pyramid, and is therefore majorly notable! Giant Snowman 06:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as per GiantSnowman. Does need some more clarification as to buying the Bohemians name and not being allowed to use it tho. Madcynic (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article could definitly use some improving, but since the club has played in the Czech First Division it is clearly notable enough to merit an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is about a former top-flight football club from the Czech Republic (embroiled in controversy and scandal). It needs improvement, not deletion. Jogurney (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I imagine that a lot of sources in the Czech media have discussed this team, especially as they are a club that recently played in their country's first division and apparently were involved in numerous interesting circumstances. Further work would be nice (in particular, I don't care for the "the club has no traditions, therefore no fans" statement, which I'm sure isn't literally true), but the topic has obvious notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a former top-flight football club from the Czech Republic. The article may renamed instead. Matthew_hk t c 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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