Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 2

< 1 July	3 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 redirect per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2D

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

Insubstantial, low quality article about a non-notable subject. - JRheic (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a redirect page to the Codename: Gordon article originally. I think the version at Half-Life 2D is unsalvagable and there is nothing worth merging, but it obviously does refer to the Codename: Gordon game. So I think reverting to this version is all that's needed here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename or merge. There is at any rate no consensus to delete the article outright; the solution to the problem posed by the article title can be found by editorial means. Sandstein 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Ambassador to North Korea

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

Erroneous article. There is not, nor ever has been, such a position as United States Ambassador to North Korea. Nor is there likely to be such a position in the forseeable future, given the state of relations between the United States and North Korea. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move. It is beyond me why the article should be deleted when it could simply be renamed. Even the infobox has the correct title. See Stephen W. Bosworth and [1]. I think we can do a WP:SK here and rename it from "ambassador" to "Special Representative". --Pstanton (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is moved, the correct title should be "Special Representative for North Korea Policy", according to the reference given by the contributor above. But he is not a representative TO North Korea. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like "Diplomatic relations between the United States and North Korea." This is the topic of the article. Leaving the other title as a redirect and a item on templates is fine. When people want to know about the non-existent ambassador they will be directed to the place where they will get the correct information. BigJim707 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing article North Korea – United States relations. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is mainly about the history of the relationship, bad as that has been. This article is about the formal diplomatic relationship. I guess you could merge this one into the other as a section at the end, but I think this one can stand on its own. BigJim707 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to North Korea – United States relations because while the Ambassador article includes some interesting info (the Swedish involvement, the special envoys) it really belongs in the more general article. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 08:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge - The article should be renamed to Special Representative for North Korea policy which is the actual title of the post. If we merge it into North Korea – United States relations we may need to split it off into a seperate article later, which is fine. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a merge per TreasuryTag. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wikipedia's policy on article titles says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title but instead should use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Ambassador sounds like the most frequently used term for this sort of position, but since the sources so not use that word, I propose a rename to "Special envoy" or "Special representative". I oppose a merge because the subject is independent of issues of US/NK relations; the position is notable in its own right. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 15:41, 5 July 2011 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Maryum Azmi" ‎ (Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.maryumazmi.com/maryumazmi.htm (CSD G12)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maryum Azmi

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

Unable top find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not contain any citations. Delete unless reliable outside sources can be found as described by WP:REF. --Orman.michael (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.maryumazmi.com/maryumazmi.htm bio link. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulmaro Lazarin Jr.

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

Page asserts that it is: 'Not created for Promotion or Advertising, it is meant for Knowledge' but this doesn't seem to establish notability and reads as an advert for someone with a clear COI. Reichsfürst (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't you have speedied this and spared us all the week-long discussion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've got in trouble before for speedying things inappropriately and while it almost certainly isn't notable it does make a claim to being so and thus I didn't think a speedy was appropriate - as per 'Furthermore, assertions that a person is widely noted, that a company is the largest provider of something, or a website was featured on television are all valid assertions and do not qualify as A7' Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. Reichsfürst (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy. Not notable. Only sourced to facebook, autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems very promotional to me, I'd have probably nominated under G11... Nik thestoned 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Arguably spam regardless of the note at the bottom of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No notable mentions, and the article stands upon social networking pages. I literally found zero results on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoundBug

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

sounds like a commercial Krischan111 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep add citations --Jgarcia44 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Amongst the external links in the article is a BBC news item. My own searches turned up reviews in Maximum PC, Sound and Vision, and Leo Laport's Gadget Guide. There's a bunch more but that's enough to show that this product has been noted with reviews in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The BBC news article should be sufficient to warrant notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A couple of notes:

To new contributors with "few or no other edits outside this topic." Anyone who brings a sound, policy-based argument to the table will carry weight. Same goes for references, re-writes in draft space, all that. But this is not a vote, and the decision is not made by counting the number of emboldened "Keeps." Thanks for coming and taking part in the process, though.
To everyone else: Don't abuse the "few or no other edits outside this topic" tag.
Colonel Warden and Carrite both discuss precedent. It's easy to locate articles of this sort, using the left hand side bar, Toolbox -> Special Pages -> All pages with prefix (under the "Lists of pages" header, second one down) From this we get
- All article pages that start with "Criticism of," and
- All Wikipedia pages that astart with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of."

While precedent is not binding since consensus can change, if you're going to raise it in a discussion, please provide some links. Otherwise folks will {{fact}} you, so to speak.

I'm going to redirect this, but merges are editorial only, so the discussion now must move to the target article's talk page, Thanks for coming, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

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

The topic title is framed to highlight negative coverage of this sect. This is inherently contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV and so constitutes an improper WP:POVFORK of the main article. Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What you say has some merit, but I am a big believer in precedent aiding our AFD decisions. There are many, many "negative" Criticism of pieces that have flown... Ergo, normal notability rules should apply and summary execution would seem inappropriate. No decision on that, but I'm banking on a fairly vast corpus of published independently written works on the topic. Carrite (talk)

For a precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times which was nominated on similar grounds and which was duly deleted. Warden (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the esteemed Colonel, the body of precedent is in favor of retaining "Criticism of..." pages, such as Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I have voted to keep criticism articles on some previous occasions, on the grounds that the criticism is notable. I now understand that WP:NPOV is a more important consideration, being a core policy, not a guideline. I am also now more familiar with the extent to which political axe-grinding and advocacy takes place on Wikipedia despite our clear policy forbidding this. This is an example of how consensus can change. And we notice below that you yourself now urge that we delete this article. Warden (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wall Street - a similar discussion which just closed as delete. Warden (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wall Street was a separate kettle of fish — an extraordinarily broad amalgam of unrelated critiques. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article like this is inherently non-NPOV by its very nature. But Wikipedia does have Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of the Catholic Church, and so forth ad nauseam. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how we don't have Praise of Christianity, Praise of Buddhism, Praise of the Catholic Church or Praise of the Latter Day Saint movement. This is blatant bias. Warden (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought exactly! How to balance these "Criticism of..." articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, criticism does not necessarily mean fault-finding. True criticism is, or should be, an objective analysis of the faults and merits of a particular phenomenon (see Criticism). Just as a film critic does not necessarily pan a film, he might give it two thumbs up. Nevertheless, these Criticism of.. articles in Wikipedia for the most part focus on the fault-finding and negative aspects of a particular institution. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has "criticism, n. The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." Warden (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to me that a criticism article is going to always be POV, and there are not religion critics like there are book and movie critics -- although maybe there should be. How about "Views of...", which could give both positive and negative views? There must be some notable positive opinions. BigJim707 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPOV doesn't mean we don't have criticism articles (as several have been pointed out above). Any novel religious movement is bound to have its detractors, and the LDS movement has had plenty. Rather, per NPOV, we need to cover this topic with appropriate balance, and deletion is no help in that regard. Sourcing is plenty adequate for what's claimed here. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't an article only for criticism always going to be unbalanced? And isn't the original article unbalanced also if the criticism is moved to its own article? BigJim707 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per standard practice. Otherwise all this criticism ends up back in the main article. This is meant to be a balanced article about critics the critics themselves don't have to be balanced CD-Host (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)— CD-Host (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Yes, this is appropriate as a separate article. And I can understand why there wouldn't be "praise" articles as a practice, and such articles would be heavily targeted and argued over. This topic would have even more interest and relevance in light of the "Book of Mormon" Broadway musical, and I could see even Mormon scholars being interested in this; it shouldn't be meant to bash or carry an agenda, it should be historical in nature, and this seems to fit. It even seems fitting to keep this as a separate article since many would balk at this information being contained within the main article, and who would want the edit wars then? (That might not matter toward "notability," but just imagine!) LaLaFoote (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

By providing a platform for criticism but not for praise, we would have a biased stance contrary to WP:NPOV - a core policy. You are welcome to your opinion but we prefer policy-based argument here. Do you have one, please? Warden (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this article as a "soapbox" platform; it seems to discuss the topic in a scholarly fashion. I'd have to just mirror the "precedent" examples mentioned by others. Most importantly should be that the topic is referenced and NOT a soapbox -- if Mormons are criticized for polygamy, for instance, that is worth documenting, and is certainly able to be referenced. I wouldn't even object to an article that discussed "praise" in the same fashion, however that type of article might not be as bulletproof. I can't think of good examples to make that also "notable," but if, say, the Mormon church accomplished something for which it received notable praise external to the church (just as criticism would tend to be), then really, why couldn't that article exist? This one shouldn't be killed just because it's "opposite" hasn't been created by someone yet. I can't cite a policy for that; it just seems like common sense. LaLaFoote (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was to put both criticism and praise in the same article. BigJim707 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. To quote WP:NPOV#Point of view forks: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. ... This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." Clearly an article that focuses on one point of view cannot be NPOV, by definition. If there is any useful content in this "criticism" article it should be merged into the main article, but it shouldn't be a separate article. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The quote from WP:NPOV#Point of view forks doesn't mean that a "criticism of X" page shouldn't be created; otherwise, it would be impossible to create an article on an individual/organization's questionable behaviors which have raised public objections, regardless of the subject's notability. As far as I understand, the quote from WP:NPOV#Point of view shows that both points of view (criticism not praise, but responses to criticisms), must be presented on the same page. This issue can be resolved by discussions on the talk page and additions of content, not by an AFD. Moreover, despite WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm forced to note that there are many pages which start by "Criticism of...", and so I don't think we can assess one article's validity without taking those into account. Lastly, the word "Controversies" instead of "criticism" in the title appears to me more appropriate. --Europe22 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Huh. This is the second time in two years I've seen the nom advocate deleting an article. Mirabile dictu ... anyway, it's a common mistake to assume NPOV = we can't say anything negative about a subject. There are many thousands of articles about which almost nothing good can be said; this isn't a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue, it's precedent. We are required, simply, to have nothing but solid sources backing up any such criticism, and the degree to which we need to kneel before the altar of NPOV is that it's incumbent in any criticism article to include well-sourced rebuttals, where applicable. Why, look - this article, and its forks, does just that. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It feels like this is being looked at the wrong way somehow. Yes, so many articles on "criticism of" exist, and have good reason to. It should come down to whether it's NOTABLE, thus the article should stand by the standard of WP:NOTE and NOT WP:NPOV if the article doesn't itself criticize, but simply informs. The nom has contributed to articles like "bullying in academia," would he find it off-putting that no "back-patting in academia" article exists? If the article on Lee Harvey Oswald talks about him being an assassin, should another article exist to tell of what a nice guy he was otherwise? Mormonism has received much notable criticism, going back to polygamy and going up to its stand against gay marriage (and newsmaking activities toward that end). I don't know where "praise" falls in the landscape of notability, but perhaps it could, and then someone should make an article about that, too. I wouldn't even mind if this is relabeled as "Controversies" instead of criticism. But y'know, I just stopped by here while commenting on another AfD because it looked interesting, and I don't appreciate someone slapping an WP:SPA label on my butt here (both Warden and Prioryman), and especially being referred to as a "sockpuppet." I may not have made many edits, but more than just a few, and on hugely unrelated topics. It seems that advocates of deletion would like to diminish what I have to say here by WP:BITE and other means, and that isn't very cool. Warden also slapped an SPA label on CD-HOST above, and if you look at his edit history, the attempt to stack the deck here via a subtle "credibility attack" seems obvious. Now, stop it! LaLaFoote (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposed reason for deleting the article is for its title. This topic has been discussed on the discussion page of the article before, and, although that discourse is now a bit old, that seems a more appropriate place. The information is notable even though it is uncomfortable, and it is possible to change the article to be more neutral, so it should not be deleted on the spot.--Aftonj1993 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup hopefully. It's not uncommon for articles about contentious political or religious debates to have NPOV issues, and while it irritates me to see biased articles I think the community does clean them up over time. When I first started reading Wikipedia articles in 2003, bias issues were a lot more apparent than they are now, in my opinion. In terms of the current debate, it seems to me like there are not only sources that criticize the movement, but also sources that discuss the nature and history of said criticism. Here's one about a "protestant apology" for criticism of Mormonism: [2]. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer more and better sourcing, i.e. both in quantity and quality, for such controversial articles. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. As Life of Riley points out, there is much precedent for keeping such Criticism of X religion articles. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If the criticism is dispassionately reported it cannot be dubbed POV. There is scope for improvement in this article but it should not be deleted. --118.95.88.220 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~- This is a tough call. There is already a Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page and I'm wondering if a merge there might be a solution. I don't like this article and hate the way it is footnoted (five stacked footnotes to "document" a subjective statement, no page numbers, etc.). I think, in general, that "Criticism of..." pieces should be a section at the bottom of the main article about that which is being criticized. There's nothing whatsoever in the way of criticism at Latter Day Saint movement and that would be another highly likely target for merger. I have a hunch that the Jets and the Sharks would be going at it with switchblades if a criticism section was ported there, however. There is something to be said in favor of valoric discretion to keep another Mormon musical from breaking out. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon further review, delete this as a content fork of Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which covers the same material much more proficiently. I think that's the right call. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (what is sourced and appropriate) to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No opinion whether that article is appropriate, but we don't need two. Sandstein 05:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I,m sorry Pln9mg but the consensus here is that he's not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Kroger

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

The references available fail to show any significant coverage of this lawyer, they are just very brief mentions regarding certain cases. Other than those I could only find this post - frankie (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Kroger is an active advocate of the medical marijuana and cannabis legalization movement in Los Angeles. The nature of his cases and his involvement in cases that are on the cutting edge of legal decisions regarding privacy, drug law and drug legalization are what make him a notable figure and the reasons why his article should stand. He is one of the individuals responsible for drafting the medical marijuana ordinance in Los Angeles, which was cited in reference No. 6 (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/charges_dismissed_against_marijuana_dispensary_ope.php). Kroger has been quoted in The Huffington Post, ABC News -- he is recognized as a subject matter expert in matters of drug legalization and the legality of medical marijuana. If you look at the articles cited, he is often the attorney representing medical marijuana dispensaries and gives advice to growers and dispensers through his YouTube channel. Also, the facts of the thetokeofthetown.com post are included in the 10th reference (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/marijuana_case_inglewood.php). - Pln9mg (talk 21:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the cases he's been involved with have received media coverage, but the mentions of him are merely incidental as one of the parts of the case. Being contentious, his line of work does naturally attract slightly more attention than usual, but at this point there are no sources available that provide any significant coverage - frankie (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "incidental" that he's part of the case, and it's not like he was just some lawyer that happened to represent these dispensaries and growers. He was sought out by medical marijuana dispensaries and by growers to represent them -- why? Because he has a track record of knowing and being a part of the legal mechanisms that made medical marijuana legal in Southern California a reality. He's recognized as a subject matter expert by the media. If his notoriety is "incidental" because of the circumstances that surround him and because of that he's not worthy of a wikipedia page, by that test it could be argued that almost anyone of any note would not be. I also argue again that the work that Kroger is doing, that has been reported in the media, is important and noteworthy. Also, should it be a strike against him is that he doesn't have a PR team that can land him profiles in The Los Angeles Times and The New Yoker? - Pln9mg (talk 23:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incidental that he's part of the case, and I have no reason to doubt that he is sought as a lawyer due to his capability as such. What is incidental is the little coverage that he has received due to his participation in those cases, and there aren't any sources that make him the subject of attention in a way that could meet WP:BIO. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't resort to PR for positioning, specially since that makes us more capable of assessing the matter more appropriately, but that doesn't say anything in favor of the subject but only against other subjects, which is why it is normally considered irrelevant - frankie (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my previous points and I reiterate that William Kroger is notable. This discussion is going around in circles. We are at an impasse. - Pln9mg (talk 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.113.235 (talk) [reply]

Delete: It's not an impasse at all, Pln9mg. A subject doesn't become notable, per Wikipedia guidelines, by you believing that his work is important. He becomes so through him receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable, third-party sources. It's well established that notability isn't achieved through being quoted in the newspapers; it's in the newspaper article being about, in this case, Mr. Kroger. Not one qualifying source mentioned in the article does more than deliver a single quote from Kroger amidst several other quotes. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage. When I searched both Yahoo and Google, I did find a William Kroger however it was a William Kroger associated with hypnosis, not an attorney affiliated with cannabis and medical marijuana. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A more focused search for "William Kroger" plus "marijuana" finds a few mentions, but that's all they are: mentions. Similarly, the three sources which are cited in the article as "featuring" Kroger simply quote him, briefly, in cases where he is the attorney or on matters of marijuana legal policy. This situation often comes up with attorneys: simply being the attorney on a case, even a notable case, does not make them notable. And simply being quoted in the newspaper does not amount to the "substantial" coverage required by Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Friedlander

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

With all respect for the rabbi, but he is not noteworthy. He is just the head of a marginal publishing house. His great ancestry does not make him noteworthy either. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the info to an article about the publishing house. Joe407 (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about that publishing house. Nor, in all likelyhood, should there be. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. I did a search on Google and Google Books and only came up with information on Israel Friedlander, who is notable. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Egypt

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

This article is un-sourced, and contains extremely dubious road signs, specifically those related to skiing and snow chains. In light of the signs that are extremely unlikely to actually be from Egypt, and the overall lack of sources for this article, I believe it should be deleted as misinformation. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, or just plain wrong. Unfortunately the official ministry of information website is down but even without it there is an even bigger clue than the presence of reindeer and snow chains. The script! If a deliberate hoax it is particularly inept. --AJHingston (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The editor also created these Road signs in Iran, Road signs in Japan, Road signs in Poland. There was also Road signs in Azerbaijan but it is now a redirect to Traffic sign - frankie (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Japan article, and on reviewing the others I don't see the smoking gun signs as there were in the Egypt one I nominated, though the whole lot is a bit suspicious. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of vandalism in articles related to traffic signs by a variety of editors including User:Santapo, some IPs (such as 96.233.62.147 and 180.216.38.66). Example: "spode limo" sign. That one was rather obviously made-up Portuguese, but as these articles are totally unsourced, it is not easy to check what is correct information and what is a non-obvious hoax. --Lambiam 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the user created none of these articles, with the exception of Road signs in Azerbaijan. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the most part, these signs seem to be pretty much standard road signs used in many countries. How are these signs unique to Egypt? I tend towards delete unless these are shown to be unique. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sign images that I checked are claimed to be in the public domain because they are Swedish road signs created by the Swedish Transport Administration for which no copyright claim is made. No doubt if the Egyptian government wanted to start using them, they could, but no evidence has been provided that these signs are used in Egypt or anywhere nearby. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an international convention on road signs but Egypt is not listed as a party. However, the official Egyptian website is now back up, which removes any doubt - the article is a hoax or wrong --AJHingston (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rameez M Virji

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

I cannot find any third party sources to support this BLP, nor to establish notability. Subject has two books but these are published by www.createspace.com, a self-publishing facility - frankie (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine for a Better Tomorrow is a credible 3rd party source with information, actually. And anyways, there is always a Global TV news article and a Globe and Mail article that can be added as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.250.45 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Medicine for a Better Tomorrow is a company started by Rameez, so it doesn't qualify as a third party source. This is what I get from Global TV and Globe and Mail [3] [4], but maybe I'm doing something wrong. Could you be more specific about those articles? - frankie (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for what is apparently an autobiography. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable third party mentions. I didn't find anything but blogs on both Google and Yahoo searches. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion G3, blatant hoax. The key word is false equivalent. If this show were legitimate, Nickelodeon would not let it slip under our radar: there would be lots of info about it online. However, there's nothing online except this article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon the Big Help Games

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

WP:FANCRUFT. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not even fancruft, really (and I'm afraid that isn't a proper rationale for deletion, no matter how I do agree). Just a Nick fan responding to Disney's Friends for Change Games by creating a false equivalent for their favorite network. No sources to speak of and I would think we would have heard much more about this from the network itself. Also, please look at Charity Williams, an article created by the same editor who is claimed to be on these shows, but has the usual poor hoax celebrity type of writing going on (I hardly think a bit actor would be leading a team in this type of competition rather than Victoria Justice). Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Tower (Detroit)

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

Non-notable building Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet any of the requirements in WP:GNG. At no point in time has this building received coverage from reliable and notable sources. --Rjhymel (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lafayette Park, Detroit. Apparently the subject building is one of the constituent buildings of this Mies van der Rohe-designed residential project which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the building is not notable enough to deserve an article of its own, and neither are its sister buildings Lafayette Pavilion Apartments, Lafayette Towers Apartments East, and Lafayette Towers Apartments West. Nominator might want to take a look at those articles as well. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny World & Balloon Boy

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

Non-notable game Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because it has been around since 2006 so there obviously is no issue. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:HARMLESS. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand corrected. Delete since there are no sources. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously there is an issue - that there are no sources attesting to the subject's notability. That among the nearly four million articles on Wikipedia some slip through the cracks doesn't exempt them from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonboy

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

Delete - Does not meet requirement for notability, seems like vanity ElAnimalSalvaje (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in no way establishes notability, google search turns up myspace page etc with no reliable third-party sources. I would also question whether the band The Max Levine Ensemble itself is notable. Reichsfürst (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band The Max Levine Ensemble appears to be legitimate and meets notability requirements. Keep under the condition of finding more accurate and reliable references. --Orman.michael (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Max Levine Ensemble. I can find no coverage about David Combs, aka Spoonboy, that establishes notability for him as an individual performer. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. I would delete this page, then have a discussion about The Max Levine Ensemble to see if we should keep that article or not. A redirect would work for the moment, but I remain unconvinced the other article should be kept either. 68.55.42.121 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and The Max Levine Ensemble, both seem like basically advertising their bands, rather than a reflection of what notable sources say about them. 173.66.159.138 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10th Hole Productions

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

Advertisement for minor film investment company. Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is about a developer of and investor in meaningful independent films. Investing in notable films does not make this business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources. Agree with the above that the mere investment in notable films does not confer notability on the investor. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Lundström

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

Article does not demonstrate that topic meets notability requirements of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Player meets the first point in WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League". Niklas Lundström has played one game in Elitserien and therefore passes WP:NHOCKEY. HeyMid (contribs) 17:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- if he has, then find a cite and show it in the article. That's what we're supposed to do. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - From the article (and I took this from the version as it was AfDed) "Lundström played his first Elitserien game on December 28, 2010, which was against HV71. However, AIK lost the game 8–2.[1]" With a ref. That meets WP:NHOCKEY. And the link provided in the article also shows that the player played in the Elitserien. I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is an issue. Rlendog (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem, I believe, was that the entire text was covered in a single paragraph; thus, it is not easy to understand whether the reference was related to either the information about the player in general, or whether it was related to the Elitserien game – especially if you don't understand Swedish. Hey Mid (contribs) 07:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alright, the poor kid got shelled in that one Elitserien game he played, but he did play in it. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This player meets the first requirement in WP:NHOCKEY. Two different reliable sources show that he played in one game in the Elitserien league. HockeyDB and Elite Prospects--Rjhymel (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As does the article about the game linked in the article as an inline reference to the statement that he played an Elitserien game. [5] Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY by virtue of having played in the Elitserien, according to reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Yo Face

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

Advertisement for non-notable band, created by their manager's role account (since blocked). Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band is not notable and has no traction. The article is more an advertisement (links) for the band. DeusImperator (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I mistaken, or could this speedily deleted per g5? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - no, it was created before the manager's role account was blocked, so as I understand G5 it doesn't qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a mess, the band isn't notable, and seems like blatant advertising. Thebrickwithouse (talk) 19:13, July 2 2011 (UTC)
F*** This Article: Alright, I probably should have resisted, but ... in any event, take away this outfit's MySpace page, its Facebook page, its YouTube page and its Vimeo page, and you've got a lot of links to porn and X-rated fiction sites. No reliable sources proffered, none to be found. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Ewanyk

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

Article does not demonstrate that topic meets notability requirements of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tani

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

Buch of reasons: Barely referenced; only references appear to be promotional or unrealiable. Reads like a resume. Non-notable person. Also terrible grammar ~~and mistakenly categorized in Category:People~~. PROD was declined by article's creator, who appears to be a SPA. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't get any notable sources on both Google and Yahoo except for COI websites. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert, maybe written by someone with a coi. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The House (restaurant)

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

Subject of article has not at notability standards of WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep (as author). Restaurant is an award winning restaurant, including being awarded a Michelin star twice in a row. Only six restaurants in the Republic of Ireland have this much sought recognition. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the general notability guideline, per the sources already provided and the Michelin rating. Steven Walling 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided are sufficient to establish notability. We ought to have an article about every restaurant with a Michelin rating, rather than deleting this article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Strait microclimate

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

Tagged an unsourced since 04-2010. Searches on "Northumberland Strait microclimate" in Google Books and Scholar yield zero hits, apparently a non-notable topic. If sources are to be found this would probably be better merged --Nuujinn (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Northumberland Strait. One may find few and small references, e.g. Jost Vineyards' climate information. BTW this one says: "[...] mesoclimate, often misnamed as a microclimate", so, if kept, moving to "... mesoclimate" is a suggestion. - Nabla (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable reference. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable topic. Note that there is no hits for ""Northumberland Strait mesoclimate" on Google Scholar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I recall a New York Times article about the Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island that mentioned the special climate of the area, but that was more of background information. This can always recreated later if and when more sources discuss the topic. I am willing to change my mind on this one. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found it and added it to the Confederation Bridge article.^[1]

Delete. Someone added their job. Szzuk (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ dePalma, Anthony (April 27, 1997). "Canada Paves the Way To Prince Edward Island". New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2011.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wafah Dufour

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

Although there has been significant coverage of Wafah Dufour, it is my opinion that she is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. For better or for worse, her claim to fame is that she is related to Osama Bin Laden. As a singer/songwriter, she is unsigned and has not released a record. As a reality TV star, her show was never produced. I'm not sure what would constitute notability as a model. If a person has significant coverage, we presume there is notability, but I think that she falls into the category of What Wikipedia Is Not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bin Laden had very many relatives. Do we need to have an article for each one? I'd say her mother, who also has an article about her, is arguably more notable due to the fact that she wrote a book. Which brings me to me next point: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps Wafah Dufour will become notable in the future, but it is equally possible that her first album will never come to fruition. Extrapolating from this phrase, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual," my feeling is that we should delete the article. I look forward to hearing others' views. GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although I am not sure what Wafah has accomplished as a singer, model or other entertainment personality, she does appear to have received a significant amount of publicity throughout the world, over a period of several years, for her efforts to publicize herself in those occupations. See this Google News Search, which on the first page of results alone shows mentions of her in English-, Spanish-, French-, Turkish-, Portuguese-, Vietnamese-, and German-language media. It is true that Osama Bin Laden had something like 300 nieces and nephews. However, most of them don't seek the public spotlight and are not mentioned in the media. Wafah has sought out the public spotlight and received it to some extent. The fact that she is still receiving some publicity more than eight years after she started to receive publicity indicates that there is continuing interest in her, even if she has not achieved stardom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts! You raise a good point. My question is, does publicity equate with notability? I definitely think there are enough reliable sources which have written about her, but despite that, I'm not sure it justifies her inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not supposed to echo or initiate tabloid-style sensational coverage of individuals. But, what does it mean if we were to decide that coverage was mere publicity? Wouldn't that require us to make decisions based on our personal POV, in violation of WP:NPOV? In Wafah Dufour's case there is sufficient coverage of her, on a variety of topics, to flesh out an article. You mention OBL having 300 nieces and nephews. Given that he had close to five dozen half-siblings he may have even more than ~~300~~400 relatives. And we wouldn't even consider starting articles about ninety percent of them because we wouldn't have sufficient reliable sources to provide meaningful coverage. Consider this article on OBL's relatives, written after his death. It mentions just 3 of those 300 -- including Wafah Dufour. I don't think there is any question that she is within the small subset of OBL's relatives who merit an individual article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If, for the sake of argument, this article were deleted, where should the information about Wafah Dufour be shoe-horned? Our nominator has acknowledged, in the nomination, that Wafah Dufour has been the subject of extensive news coverage, on multiple topics. The Wafah Dufour article is the intersection of multiple topics, including: (1) notable relatives of OBL; (2) fashion models; (3) singer-songwriters; (4) reality TV. Readers interested in any of those topics may want to read more about Wafah Dufour. It would be a disservice to our readers to force the information about her to be shoe-horned into other articles on any of those topics. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- extensive media coverage = notabililty (importance on the other hand ... but that has no relevance at AFD) Agathoclea (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. bd2412 T 15:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does publicity = notability? Um ... well, yes. It does. The GNG holds that someone is presumed notable if she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't pass judgment as to why the media has decided to accord the subject notice. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Significant coverage" is, in fact, one of the central facets of notability. This is not one event, nor is she covered merely for being only one of many relatives to Bin Laden. Roger Clinton, Jr. would not have gotten an article but for his relationship to Bill Clinton, but the "significant coverage" criterion was reached. Wafah likewise garners similar treatment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lunghitano

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. sources are only primary sources. could not find any reliable sources. nothing in gnews. nothing in major Australian search engine trove and nothing in major Australian news site [6]. he's only had 7 fights and none of these fights were top level events. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are either invalid links or from the promotion company. He also seems to fail the notability criteria. His biggest claim to fame is an unsourced statement that he ranks in the top 5 Muay Thai middleweights in the state of Western Australia. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

even if he was in the top 5 in Western Australia that does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any notability criteria. Being ranked in the top 5 of Western Australia does not meet notability criteria, even if true. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Janggeom (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sourcing issues do not appear to have been addressed so the delete side wins it. Can i remind the participants that casting aspertions on the motivations and actions of other users could be a good way to get your votes discarded so please don't do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat World Grand Prix II

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

In my opinion, this is a blatant use of the encyclopedia for event promotion. Using a poster to illustrate the page demonstrates the slippery slope issues at play. Not all sporting events are notable. Provided sources for event are sports blogs. As I stated in the AfD procedure for this event's predecessor (which has already occurred and not drawn significant resonance from the kickboxing media): "Filling in a redlink on a notable fighter's kickboxing record seems a low bar for inclusion." Since the event hasn't occurred, WP:CRYSTAL is also in play here. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —BusterD (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —BusterD (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above tag has no basis in reality. 13,000 edits here since 2005. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added by Cyperus in an unsigned edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed it is a poor attempt to discredit the nominator. the tags is for single purpose editors, clearly people are going to resort to desperate tactics to save these articles. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contributor has already added sources and it’s obvious that more details will emerge as the event occurs. I would suggest people wait till the outcome of the first Super Kombat page before nominating extra pages as it does feel like the kickboxing pages are under siege by deletionists who are nominating what seems to be every single page. As mentioned in previous nominations this is a notable up and coming promotion which has notable fighters competing in a tournament format competition with tv and media interest from across the world including Eurosport one of the top sports channels in Europe. If you have any idea about mma or kickboxing think 3rd most notable in Europe behind It's Showtime and possibly United Glory (about 4th or 5th globally). This is an important event and it should not be deleted on notability issues. If people think we are here to promote events in some sort of sinister manner you are wrong. We are fans who are passionate about our sport. Thank you. jsmith006 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2011

Strong Keep Another abuse of some users that hint positions and want to make points on our back, honest writers who improve the kickboxing database. There are lot of kickboxing fans who use in this moment wikipedia, because of our work (Marty, Jsmith, me and others who are involved in the kickboxing projects) the database is the most complete on the internet. About this Superkombat organisation: considering K-1's decline, this Romanian promotion is in this moment considered the second promotion from the world, after the famous Dutch It's Showtime. There will be one title involved in this event, from parental organisation WAKO-Pro, while other notable fithers are scheduled to fight: Stefan Leko, Mighty Mo (kickboxer), Singh Jaideep, etc. I would also argue that martial arts are not as mainstream as most other sports so relying on the big newspapers like the New York Times for event details is not going to be possible. But, the promotion signed a contract with Eurosport (all the events are LIVE broadcasts on this tv channel) and with televisions from Asia, South America and Pacific. IF YOU KEEP ABUSING US (the honest kickboxing writers who write work here as volunteers), we will leave the community! This is an abuse, kickboxing is practically dead in United States, where you follow mainly MMA. You practically dont respect the other continents, Europe and Asia, from where this phenomen appeared. You are completely behind kickboxing and dont have minimum knowledges, no offence.

Cyperuspapyrus (talk) 16:17 CET, 2 July 2011

Delete. Per nom. Similar articles are being proposed for deletion, and my assumption is that the same supporting editors of these "events" will be voicing their support and outrage. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I. Many, like Cyperus, appear to take these nominations personally and make silly threats (see above).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to above) Your assumption is absolutely correct Bbb23 although your reasons are not. If many people are taking it personally then maybe it’s because you aren’t very good at communication. Calling Cyperus threats silly because he cares about his pages and is genuinely upset about his (sourced and notable) pages being nominated is pretty cold (not very fitting for a person who doesn't like mean people according to his profile). If I’d have had you guys ganging up on me two years ago I probably wouldn’t be here either. We may seem like stupid kickboxing fans who aren’t into philosophy or the wonders of the universe but the events we write about are notable for kickboxing. The recent (possibly deliberate) targeting of our pages by people with little or no knowledge of the sport, actually appears very unfair esp as sources have been applied and weaker pages haven't got a mention. I’ve worked on kickboxing pages for over two years here and never had a problem till recently – it’s quite distressing to see something you have worked on for two years seemingly being undone before our eyes. jsmith006 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2011

Comment. It's human and understandable after investing time and energy in an article to want to keep it, even though, of course, none of us owns the articles we work on or create. However, Cyperus's comments go well beyond such a response, screaming and crying abuse and conspiracy. "Silly" is a nicer word than he deserves. Frankly, you're part of the problem as phrases like "ganging up" and "possibly deliberate" are clearly euphemisms for the same allegations of conspiracy. Anyway, fortunately, Cyperus has you to comfort him and to encourage such misguided views. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To above - Well done for checking his talk page – you really got me there. Of course I’m going to offer support. If I’m correct you were the one who had some sort of argument with Cyperus to start with – before I’d even begun my role as ‘comforter’ so to accuse me as part of the problem is absolutely laughable. Cyperus is a young user who is only just getting to grips with Wikipedia, to who English is a second language, and you a supposed hater of ‘mean people’ could have been more understanding given the circumstances. One last thing, have you even checked how many kickboxing pages have been nominated recently SuperKombat World Grand Prix, SuperKombat World Grand Prix II, all of Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague, K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn, K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm, KOK Europe GP 2011 in Vilnius/KOK Europe GP 2011 in Chişinău – if this isn’t a concerted effort by deletionists (one in particular) then I don’t know what is. I won’t even ask your opinion on it because to you guys this is probably better than Christmas for a four year old. “Quick guys over to the K-1 pages there’s deleting to be done”. jsmith006 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011

Actually, you do a better job confirming that you are part of the problem than I could ever do. However, all of our comments are becoming distracting. Hopefully, every AfD will be evaluated on its own terms.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an earth are you talking about – I’m part of the problem – what problem is that, resistance to you guys? I don’t remember ever going around to multiple pages and slapping a deletion symbol without even consulting anyone. I haven’t gone around saying that you’d better not create anymore pages until this is sorted out. All I’ve done is stuck to my subject of speciality and created pages. If you think it’s a good thing to make things so rigid that people in certain fields are scared to contribute or are driven off because they don’t want to have to deal with this sort of thing – then yes (to you) I must be part of the problem. jsmith006 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011

Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It is notable and well sourced. It was also one of the biggest cards of the year.WölffReik (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources to back your claim of "biggest cards"? LibStar (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event hasn't even occurred yet. and for it to pass notability it must have third party sources. being telecast in 83 countries is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Title match, maybe notable? Fighters that are scheduled to fight? Should we also delete the It's Showtime events in your opinion? Let's delete whole kickboxing database. It's Showtime and SuperKombat are not important, it doesnt matter there are both top 3 in the world organisations. And same users came here too, I wonder if there are not same person. Cyperuspapyrus (talk)) 17:38 CET, 2 July 2011

no, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. please provide evidence of third party sources (ie not connected to kickboxing or the televising) to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the notable exception of WP:CRYSTAL arguments supporting deletion, this thread looks essentially identical to the other kickboxing AfDs. I found this Romanian news source, but it's a brief mention of the event and the fighters involved. I'm not convinced this is enough coverage, though there may be more after the event occurs, at which point it would be appropriate to make this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Jehrobot - thank-you that is a constructive comment we can work with. To other deletionists, this is how to get your point across without upsetting people. jsmith006 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2011

New Source [7] or type Local Kombat prezinta gala SUPERKOMBAT Constanta! Stefan Leko se bate cu Morosanu! Vezi TOT cardul galei de pe 16 – preview showing fighters etc. The website it belongs to also has boxing, wrestling, mma and is the premier website for combat sports in Romania. jsmith006 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2011

Not really Another kombat.ro? That's three. Fails WP:DIVERSE. All of these sources are merely sports promotion, and don't meet the standard for independent reliable sources. I could see a merge between all three events and the parent company. To make it clear: This page fails WP:CRYSTAL, because the event hasn't even occurred yet. It fails every other test of WP:EVENT as well. Fails WP:EFFECT, fails WP:INDEPTH, fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and fails WP:PERSISTENCE. I'm seeing no clash on those issues. I'm seeing zero policy-based arguments for keeping above. I'm seeing lots of: "we're so put upon in this this arena of editing..." and "but it is too really important..." I'm not buying it, and neither should the closing admin. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Runner (Film)

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

Unreleased film with casting announcements but no evidence that it has started shooting. Fails WP:NFF. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE. Whilst there are a lot of articles on the internet speculating on the possibility of the lead actor role being filled there's nothing else at all about the film Who.was.phone (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources verifying this article. As of now, the film is only a mere speculation. --Gaxtreme (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as extremely premature article creation. The film and role was announced here, but actors are often attached to roles without anything ever resulting. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; only significant author has requested deletion. Would be happy to refund this at your user page if you want to keep working on it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil and Japanese cognates

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

This article title could be "List of Tamil and Japanese words that sort of sound the same and have kind of the same meanings". There's no relation at all between Tamil and Japanese. It would be drawing a long bow to suggest this could be WP:MERGEd into False cognate. With greatest respect to the editor who started the article, this is at best very interesting original research. Shirt58 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speak Japanese. The Japanese romanization isn't even correct for many of these. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 14:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article, and I partly agree with the above comments. Scholars have long debated the connection between Japanese and Tamil, but to rule off by saying "There's no relation at all between Tamil and Japanese" is ridiculous. And "The Japanese romanization isn't even correct for many of these." if you mean 'ou' instead of 'ō', that is a common transliteration style used as it forgoes the need of having to use the diacritic mark for elongated.

I agree that the article should be deleted, not for the above reasons, but because I have yet to find a near exhaustive list of cognates, while Japanese and Tamil show structural similarities (I speak both), because of their outside influence from Chinese and Sanskrit respectively it is hard to draw definite conclusions. Time to hit the Susumu Ouno sensei's books.

--Avedeus (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all of them that doubt, http://books.google.com/books?id=sD-MFTUiPYgC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Japanese and Tamil cognates&source=bl&ots=hlGla6xLXJ&sig=b1hCau2V95HHAKYIkcmQ8IarqwU&hl=en&ei=iTsPTp2qFoi1hAeU-ZyCDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Japanese and Tamil cognates&f=false, nevertheless, you can delete it guys.--Avedeus (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The sole author of the article has requested its deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Morrow

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

Frankly I don't think this subject is notable and it is worth pointing out that the chief contributor, though not creator, is a user named Charliemorrow. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should be deleted. The only semi-reliable source on Charlie Morrow that I could find was a website created by him himself, http://www.cmorrow.com/. The article itself looks as if it were copy and pasted. In other words its not put together very well. It could use improvement and more reliable sources.--Sarah.Maretich (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(July 5, 2011) Charles Morrow is an extremely important figure in avant-garde music of the latter 20th century, both for his own compositions as well as his activities in the field, e.g. the New Wilderness Foundation, EAR Magazine (one of the pioneering publications devoted to experimental music). In fact there is in entry for him in The Grove Dictionary of American Music, an extremely significant and authoritative reference source. The new 3 CD set just issued by Phill Niblock's XI label (Experimental Intermedia) should do a great deal toward rectifying Morrow's seeming neglect in recent years. This article certainly should not be deleted. Hopefully I can find some time later this month to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.249 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable third-party mentions. I didn't find any good sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickerson Family Association

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

This article was the subject of an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickerson Family Association) over three years ago. As the archived discussion indicates, there was weak support for keeping the article, with

Frank (talk · contribs) saying "- This isn't some fly-by-night geneology club: and "If you know of neutral, verifiable sources, by all means please add them"
Gdavid3 (talk · contribs) saying "Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources...and see what develops"
Limetolime (talk · contribs) saying "Needs refs"
Michael A. White (talk · contribs) (who proposed deletion) saying "Contested prod; non-notable family organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources"

The revision history shows no changes since September 2009, when a WP:SPA added more unreferenced detail. It's July 2011, and the hoped-for improvement in secondary sources during the last AFD has not come to past. With its only source a primary source, and no evidence of notability established in the otherwise unreferenced article, it is clearly a candidate for AFD. 67.101.5.92 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD page created for an unregistered user based on request at WT:AFD using information on the article talk page. GB fan (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article about a family genealogical society of no encyclopedic import. Wikipedia is not the Nickersons, after all. WP:NOTNICKERSONS. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's tiresome to see these AfDs close with a complete lack of reliable sources, and yet not only have Keep people claim that they're notable absent such sources, but that stance taken seriously at close. WP:INS is unequivocal: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. This article never should have been given more time beyond the seven days the original AfD ran, and it should be given no more time now. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. It may have dodged the first nomination because the article was given a chance to prove itself notable, but no sources were found. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, and non-notable beyond the small intricate world of the Nickersons. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihin Lanka Flight 401

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

Non-notable incident, no injuries, fails WP:EVENT, see also WP:AIRCRASH. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek ^Talk 10:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Abhishek ^Talk 10:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This incident is completely non-notable—engine failures are nearly routine for airlines. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable routine engine shutdown. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication from reliable sources that this was a notable or even an uncommon incident. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 July 2011

Minecraft:Sheer

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, guidelines at WP:GAMECRUFT. A single item from a video game is decidedly not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. elektrik SHOOS 10:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide content, nothing notable to document on the topic. --Taelus (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the page creator: Wikipedia isn't the right place for these sorts of things, but there are Minecraft wikis available on the internet. Perhaps you could contribute to one of those? --Taelus (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Does not pass GNG and never will. Gamecruft and gameguide. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, or else redirect to Minecraft. An article written in the second person about a single non-notable item in a video game. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Holtek. Courcelles 11:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HT48FXX Flash I/O type series

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

The subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) does not meet WP:N. The article has no references, only an external link to the vendor's website. As a primary source, this external link does not evidence notability. Searching Google Web for Holtek AND HT48FXX returned 406 results. Most results are from parts catalogs, data sheet archives, and Wikipedia mirrors. There does not appear to be any non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources as required by WP:N. Searching Google News returned no results; Books, a mirror of the Wikipedia article; and Scholar, no results. Rilak (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Holtek per WP:PRODUCT. There is definitely not enough coverage of this to warrant an article of its own. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Holtek. The article doesn't do any good being a stub with no possible future of expansion, so it would fit better in the Holtek article. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact FC 1

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

also nominating related article Impact FC 2. hardly any third party coverage and nothing indepth. a few passing mention in gnews [8]. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [9] and nothing in a major Australian news website. [10]. completely lacking in coverage and in no way meets WP:GNG. being televised or having notable participants does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LibStar, I think it is important to consider that martial arts events in general do not receive a great deal of press in newspapers of record like the NYTimes, etc. They do, however, receive write-ups by dedicated MMA news sites such as www.fighting.com, which is owned by AOL, and Sherdog, which is an ESPN affiliate. These sites do independent reporting, have editorial staff, and frequently receive press clearance to attend these events in that capacity. These are not fan created sites or blogs by non-experts. Failure to find Gnews hits doesn't mean that something is by definition not-notable. It is a starting point, not the final answer. Newspapers run stories that they think will appeal to readers, which means that non-traditional sports do not receive the same amount of coverage as traditional sports like football and baseball. It seems to me like your string of nominations of MMA and kickboxing articles are based on the idea that non-traditional sports should receive the kind of news coverage that traditional sports do (in non-niche publications), but this is a tautological argument. Once something receives that kind of coverage, it will likely no longer be characterized as non-traditional. I had suggested that references exist for this page in another Afd debate, but rather than encouraging me to find and add them, you quickly nominated the article for deletion. Why the rush to quickly remove so many martial-arts related articles? There are many editors who would be willing to work with you to improve these articles, for which notability is not as black and white as you are making in seem in your noms. I am happy to provide references for this page, but I wish you had done a more thorough job of searching for them yourself before nominating the article. I have nominated several MMA articles for deletion, so I am not advocating that everything be retained. I am advocating that you familiarize yourself with the types of secondary sources that are generally cited in articles of this type and recognized by the community of editors who have helped several such articles receive "good article" status. Not doing so, and continuing to nominate pages with the same argument of "no substantial coverage" ~~(and by the way, a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion; secondary sources that allow information to be verified is sufficient)~~ can give people the impression that you enjoy being adversarial rather than collegial. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not thorough search? I searched 3 different means and found nothing. If I found substantial coverage I would not have nominated it. " a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion" it definitely is, please read WP:N and WP:GNG. This may not be a mainstream sport but we don't lower the bar for notability because you want to. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was confusing "third-party coverage" for tertiary sources, which is why I was suggesting that secondary sources would be acceptable. You made no claim about the necessity for tertiary sources. Yes, you are correct that third-party coverage is necessary for notability. I have made the change to my previous post to correct for this misinterpretation. Let's at least agree that the notion of third-party coverage in secondary sources is a complex idea and jargony expression that is prone to misstatement. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’m not as big a fan of mma as kickboxing but this is a notable promotion in Australia and one of the bigger promotions outside of the USA – there are a large number of fighters who have had experience in the top organizations such as PRIDE, Strikeforce and the UFC, some of who have been top 10 ranked fighters – see Josh Barnett and Paul Daley who for whatever reason are fighting outside of the top events. I would suggest giving time to improve the article as opposed to deletion which I feel is harsh. I also feel that the removal of this page will affect other mma pages and this will detract from wikipedia’s usefulness. If this was an event in a back room in Alabama with few notable fighters I would agree with its deletion but Impact clearly have enough pull to attract good fighters to its cards in what is a growing MMA market in Australia. Remember just because an event is not held in the USA by the UFC does not mean it is not relevant or notable in the context of mma. Thanks.jsmith006 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2011

Comment none of the above keep !votes provide any evidence of third party coverage of this event to meet WP:GNG. I could not find it covered in the Australian media. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent secondary sources provide coverage of both events and the subsequent issues with fighter pay. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From USAToday.com

Impact FC fighters still waiting for payment

Impact FC: Filho-Kang ends in draw; Rizzo kicks to victory over Shamrock

No surprises at Impact FC: Barnett, Monson, Parisyan score wins

From MMAJunkie.com

Barnett, Sokoudjou, Monson and Parisyan pick up wins at "Impact FC 1: The Uprising"

After a trying Impact FC win, Karo Parisyan not counting out a UFC return

Bob Sapp pulled off July 18's Impact FC event, threatens legal action

Pedro Rizzo, Paul Daley and "Ninja" Rua among Impact FC 2 winners

From Yahoo Sports

Rizzo, Daley winners at Impact FC in Australia

From Cagepotato.com

Exclusive: Impact FC Hasn’t Paid Its Fighters; Promoters Blame Each Other

From MMAFighting.com of AOL Sports

Pedro Rizzo Leg Kicks His Way to Victory Over Ken Shamrock at Impact FC

From Sherdog.com, an ESPN.com affiliate

Barnett Coasts in Australia; Parisyan Returns with Win

Filho Struggles with Weight for Impact FC

Impact FC Unveils Two-Card Extravaganza Down Under

Impact Promoter: Sapp Never Signed Contract, Replaced by Morris

Rizzo Chops Down Shamrock

Comment thanks I would have to look at this closer, I just wish these kind of links were in the main article rather than poorly sources articles created in the first place. I'm not sure how third party MMA and sherdog.com is. Usatoday counts as a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having the references in the article would be great, but certainly the same can be said for lots of other wiki pages. Not every article is going to be perfect. Tagging pages as needing additional references is a good way to attract the attention of people actively involved in maintaining them. Or, you could start a discussion on the page to see if others could come up with references that you might have missed. I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps, and in some cases, not informing the page creator when the page is up for deletion. These steps encourage people to improve pages. AfD discussions immediately make people defensive since the stakes are high (no one wants to see the result of their efforts disappear, particularly when they suspect that the nominator does not have the same familiarity with the subject matter or sources that frequently report on it). Discussions about notability are important, but nominating articles for deletion is not always the best way to encourage these discussions and achieve constructive results. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning, but these are some of the lessons I have found helpful along the way. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps" I have number of multiple searches for sources for each deletion. the criticism does not phase me, as these series of articles all have questionable notability (and lack third party sources) as sporting events. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the criticism doesn't phase you it just means that you nominate more pages. Almost every single deletion nomination in the martial arts section is down to you - what is that you find so threatening about martial arts Libstar and why are you refusing to notify the owners? jsmith006 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011

Comment I also wish that the sources that are being mentioned in these AfD discussions were incorporated into the articles. I don't know who owns sherdog or is responsible for the content, so I don't know how independent a source it is, but I would say it's probably the premier website for MMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog has its own staff of independent journalists and subject-matter experts that report on events happening around the globe. As you know, Sherdog's record of fight results is the de facto standard for every single MMA fighter page on Wikipedia. To interested parties, the names of the editorial team and contributors can be found here. To my knowledge, writers are independent of fighters and fight promotions. Their failure to be a mouthpiece for UFC brass has actually created quite a stir from time to time. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Another example how much time this user puts into looking for sources before nominating pages for deletion every day. Good job Buckeye, specially the ones from USA Today.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon the sourced found above. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources found, although most seemed more focused on the contract and payment disputes than the fighting. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Lorran

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

Youth footballer who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FOOTY criteria Deserter1 08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Deserter1 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NFOOTY as he had played at senior lever in a professional cup.Liam Taylor 10:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY requires an appearance in a professional league or an officially sanctioned senior international competition. Lorran has yet to do either. Deserter1 10:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or a professional senior cup, take England as an example, a player has notibility when he has played in the League Cup or FA Cup or even the Football League Trophy, this trophy Lorran has played in is a seniot professinal tournement.Liam Taylor 10:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY clealy states that a player is considered notable only if they have 1) played in a senior international competition, or 2) played in a fully professional league. Lorran has not done either (and the local Rio trophy is not equivalent to a national cup). Deserter1 12:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octoroc

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

Graphic and computer animation designer of unclear notability; prior prod (on the grounds of lack of sourcing) was removed by creator when he added some "sources" — but those sources still fail to constitute actual reliable sourcing, as every last footnote is to a blog entry, a Twitter feed, his own website or iTunes, and not a single one of them is to real media. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up with some real sources, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources: Kotaku and GameSetWatch are considered reliable sources by the videogames wikiproject; and Joystiq considered situational (WP:VG/RS). So my only consideration is if the coverage at these sites can be deemed significant. Marasmusine (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note on sources: As an extension of the previous note by Marasmusine, other sources are worth mentioning as per their status on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

Kotaku - Considered reliable after 2010 (2 such citations made, #28 and #29); considered unreliable before 2010 with exception "...only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." Established writers cited: Brian Crecente, Editor-In-Cheif (#8) and Michael McWhertor (#2).

GameSetWatch - More information on the reliability of this site as a source can be found here.

1UP.com - Listed as reliable source (footnote #21 cites an interview about the artist's scope of work).

Offworld - Normally considered a situational source, however the writer of the cited article (#7) is Brandon Boyer, who is considered the exception to the situational status of the blog.

User:Jazzlevi (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had originally prodded it but the article has been much improved with references to significant coverage on such sites as Kotaku and 1UP.com. ... discospinster _talk 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, although arguably scrapes WP:CREATIVE. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The earlier "delete" opinions are given less weight as it is not clear that the people who made them were aware that the source of the text is a public domain US government country study, which invalidates the assertions that the text is unsourced. Sandstein 05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of living in the People's Republic of China

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

This is an unsourced and arbitrary essay. The subject is covered properly here, as it is for any other nation on Wikipedia. Karpouzi (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia:Content forking. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a lack of sources. Was this article written as a report for school? And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. It's not all bad, but this, my friends, is a classic example of verboten "original research" that The Great Philosophers deemed out of bounds for Wikipedia in days of yore. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. The article is not original research, it is copied from a reliable public domain source. We have plenty of articles that were originally copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, this is no different.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC started in what, 1949. How the HELL can this be taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica?!?!?! Carrite (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but not on its own. Perhaps it can be included in one of several articles on the economy of China. Also, We should give the author the chance to provide sources for his information. It is good enough to keep for a week (without deletion) so that it could be sourced. A further issue is that there are already several articles already touching on the subject and has value to add to such pieces. DeusImperator (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We should give the author the chance...": The original author has not been active since 2007; some 35 other editors have edited the article, only one of which has managed to provide a reference to a source. So who is "the author" whom we should give that chance? --Lambiam 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Well-written, but it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I don't know if the almost totally unsourced contents of the current article can somehow be salvaged, it appears to me that the topic is notable, and not treated in the same depth by the much broader Economy of the People's Republic of China. It is also not true that no other nation on Wikipedia has a separate article on the standard of living: Standard of living in India · Standard of living in Israel · Standard of living in Japan · Standard of living in Pakistan · Standard of living in the United States. --Lambiam 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised that no one above seems to have noticed that the article is completely sourced. It clearly states at the bottom that it incorporates public domain material from the Library of Congress, which I consider a reliable source. It is not just an essay written by some student. In addition, it is a notable topic, and worthy of inclusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even remotely close to being sourced. Statement after statement after statement after statement appear with no in-line footnotes... This is a flat F of an essay in any high school social studies class in America. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there is plenty of precedence for adding material verbatim from public domain sources on Wikipedia, and adding a note at the bottom of the article. I have made the exact source of the information more clear now, so perhaps that will resolve the confusion.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Danaman5 is right. In spite of having been edited often since its creation based on Library of Congress material, there has been only one substantive change in all those years: the addition of one paragraph of material, properly sourced in-line. The rest is all wikification. --Lambiam 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though written like a essay, the article still covers valuable information and is sourced well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaxtreme (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think all you "keep" !voters are a little confused by our point of view. It's not that the subject itself isn't notable, but the fact that it's written in an essay form makes it look like an unnecessary content fork. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOTESSAY applies to "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic", which this is not. This is a summation of expert opinions written by a reliable source, the Library of Congress. It is no different than an article copied over from the public domain edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, of which there are many on Wikipedia. Many of the delete voters seem to be operating under the false notion that this article is unsourced, which is simply not the case.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is full of personal feelings; that's what essays are. Just because it isn't written in the first person doesn't mean personal feelings aren't there. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this article could be recreated. I do not believe this is content forking; I wish such articles were possible for every country. In this case however, there is a lot of content here with no in-line citations and it is hard to put any of it into the "source." The content does not meet WP:V because verification is not a theoretical matter - the editor must present content in a way that users can reasonably verify. Giving a single citation to a huge source does not meet V. Also, the content is not encyclopedic and is filled with speculation. The source is good for some things, but does not meet WP:RS for everything. Delete now, and recreate when someone wants to devote time to this massive, difficult project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template used for referencing to make the exact source more clear. To find the exact paragraphs, click on the "China: a country study" link that is now at the bottom and scroll down to the "Living Standards" and "Income Distribution" sections. Additionally, I don't really see the "speculation" or "personal opinions" in the article that others have pointed out. Perhaps someone could provide some examples.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see a way to reference every paragraph in this article for me to consider it well-referenced. If you formatted your background reading reference into an inline citation and then inserted it 20 times or however many times it needs to go in, then that would be a starting point for other people to add their own references without confusing what came from what source. It might be the case that the same citation needs to go at the end of every sentence, especially if as little as one other reference were added to each paragraph. I see that this reference is to a website which generates temporary dynamic content, so I understand why it is not possible to make direct references to the exact section headings. Still, the user deserves some explanation of how to verify the source, and that is not clear right now.

Here are some statements which seem to me like speculation or personal opinions:

"Until the end of the 1970s, the fruits of economic growth were largely negated by population increases"
"In the 1980s one of the most visible signs of the economic "revolution" was the appearance in Chinese cities of large quantities of relatively modern, varied, colorful clothes, a sharp contrast to the monotone image of blue and gray suits that typified Chinese dress in earlier years. "
"In 1978 there were only 3.6 sq m of living space per inhabitant in these cities, a reduction of 0.9 square meter since 1949. To remedy this problem, construction of modern urban housing became a top priority in the late 1970s,"
"There was never any attempt, however, at complete equalization, and a wide range of income levels remained"
"The small but dynamic domestic private sector also produced some lucrative opportunities"
"Perhaps the most serious gaps in living standards between rural and urban areas were in education and health care."

The problem with these statements is that they all make a subjective assertion. These and other similar statements in the article could be fixed, but the problem with WP:V is paramount. Every statement in every article on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and this article is extremely difficult to verify right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Hossain

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

Fails WP:PROF. Subject is an entry level lecturer at a regional college in Bangladesh. I prodded the article, but the creator of the page contests deletion. Notability has not been established via reliable sources. (the only newspaper article cited in the page only mentions his presence at a meeting in a single sentence. So, I propose Deletion of the NN prof bio. Ragib (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because you teach at some third rate university (even it it were a top tier university the rule would apply) does not mean that you are notable. DeusImperator (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on GS, almost nothing on GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion, by User:Fastily, non-admin closure. Quasi human | Talk 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AUCAB

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

This doesn't seem to be a notable organization. Searching "American Universities and Colleges Association of Bangladesh" on Google only returned results that repeated the lead sentence of this article, which makes me believe that this was a one-off idea that never really went through. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Basketball League

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears fake/hoax a "professional men's basketball league" in which none of the teams have a website but one has a facebook page with one post and two likes... Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be at best fiction, at worst a hoax. The league's YouTube channel consists of four videos, none of which shows anybody playing basketball. Two of those videos identify the league's best and worst players, with on-screen text about their statistics but no photos or video. Another shows the logos of the league's teams. Another one shows the logos of the league's teams with their win-loss records from the last season. I don't see anything here that leads me to think that this league really exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slam-dunk delete Maybe, just maybe it's a real thing, but there is absolutely no coverage of this league in independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely to be a hoax. No coverage, and a professional league who's website is a subdomain of some free hosting service? Sounds suspicious. Quasi human | Talk 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuickMedical

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

Non notable company. No significant coverage in reliable sources (just some press releases and a few quotes from the CEO). Fails WP:COMPANY OCNative (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is even one secondary source, there is no reason why this is should here.Curb Chain (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews reveals press releases or comments by its CEO. No independent indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing independent found in thorough search. Interstellarsheep (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO and partner are creators of first American digital stadiometer. This device is used in many notable studies. PNW news source DrDK1967 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be reasons to keep an article on the CEO or on the product, not the company. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. And secondly, it tastes spammy... Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bridget's Catholic Church

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

No assertion of notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was walking around in front of the church this afternoon (using Google Earth) and there appears to be a historical marker of some kind right at the bottom of the handicapped ramp going up into the front of the church. Haven't found out what it says yet. (Oh, and one of the sites for Mobile Historic Preservation Society may have downloaded some malware on my computer). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The historical marker at the church talks about Casey Jones's baptism, but I haven't seen the full text. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While it is certainly possible that this church is historically significant for something else, the tangential connection to one notable person doesn't make it notable. A 30-minute search revealed nothing from reliable sources. The Archdiocese of Mobile itself, which includes links to the histories of most of its churches, only includes a basic page without any history for this one. Furthermore, it is not listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage or the National Register of Historic Places. Unless someone can come up with something really good, I'd say delete. Altairisfar (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is listed on the Alabama Register -- it's part of the Whistler Historic District. And, as the Alabama Register lists the "building date" of the WHD as "Turn-of-the-century", then St. Bridget Church may be one of the oldest buildings in the district, as it was built in 1867. I have to agree with you though that on-line sources are hard to come by. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that historic, then someone should add why it is notable to the article itself and add some sources, even if they aren't online. As someone who has worked almost exclusively here creating articles for historic Alabama properties listed on the National and Alabama registers, I wish that I could find a good reason not to delete. I know that the article claims that it is in the Whistler Historic District, but contributing properties to historic districts that are listed on the National Register are not considered notable for that reason alone. The argument that it is included in a historic district listed on the state register makes an even weaker case. Altairisfar (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's good to know about being in the district not necessarily conferring notability (and we're not even certain that the church is a contributing property!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Churches, even those dating back to 1867, even those which have a poorly documented claim as the baptism site of a railroad employee who famously wrecked his train, are not inherently notable. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The baptism claim is not poorly documented. It's in the book Casey Jones: Epic of the American Railroad [11] by Fred J. Lee (the authorized biography by one of Casey's friends), it's in the church register and it's on the historical marker in front of the church. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this is a well known Catholic Church, it has no significant reason to be a Wikipedia article. The article in itself has not enough information on the church. There is no reason St. Bridget's Catholic Church should be an article with no real significant historical purpose.--Ltuck3 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the content into another article, perhaps a new one titled Monty Python sketches. The general consensus here is that whether or not all of the sketches meet the general notability requirement for having it's own article, the larger issue at hand here is readability and style. Having 30 very short articles is not as good as merging the content into one or a few comprehensive articles on the topic. There's no clear consensus here as to whether it should be the former or the latter, some here feel that one article would be fine, others feel the article might get a bit long and dividing the sketches by year would be for the best, but this can be done through editorial discussion. A merge still needs to happen, but I'm going to leave it in the hands of editors to discuss this and come up with the best solution. (non-administrative closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undertakers sketch

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

Not subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, and despite being "perhaps the most notorious of the Python team's television sketches" (PEACOCK alert!), generally non-notable ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be non-trivial coverage at [12], [13], [14], [15]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and [16], [17]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention [18], [19], [20], [21]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by Sergeant Cribb well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Bravo. Warden (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've looked at the first source (see talk) and was unable to find reference to the subject of that article there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the foot of page 97 and ending on page 98: start at "an undertaker's sketch ... " Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- [22]
  - Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen,
  - ~~search says p 98 but I see no mention there?~~ Thanks, I did finally get that, it's just that (and not being snarky at all) the reference was so short I missed it. "an undertaker's sketch where it is decided to cook and eat a recently deceased woman."
- [23]
  - Come on down?: popular media culture in post-war Britain, By Dominic Strinati, Stephen Wagg,
  - five sentences.
- [24]
  - Popular film and television comedy By Stephen Neale, Frank Krutnik
  - four sentences.
- [25]
  - The Comics journal, Issue 182
  - full text not available, appears to be one paragraph in a numbered list.
- [26]
  - This is not a reliable source
  - "A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy," contains partial transcript of the sketch and some discussion.
- [27]
  - The Journal of Hellenic Studies
  - Full text not available, appears to be a tangential mention?
- [28]
  - What the BBC really thought of Monty Python, The Telegraph
  - One line mention, no actual information on sketch
  - full cite: "another called The Undertaker's Sketch, starring Cleese as a man unsure of how to dispose of his mother's body,"
- [29]
  - Top five cadaver gags, Chosen by Sarah Donaldson The Telegraph,
  - It wins! One paragraph.
- [30]
  - Review/promotional piece for "Monty Python: Almost the Truth – The Lawyers Cut"
  - Google translate at [31]
  - Partial transcript one sentence.
- [32]
  - What the BBC thought of Monty Python... ohh, that looks familiar.
  - One line, full text is "a sketch in which Graham Chapman, playing an undertaker, offered to dump and eat the body of John Cleese's dead mother."
    
    I'm a bit disappointed by the overall quality of these results. The burden is not to simply locate a collection of places it's mentioned however briefly, but to locate the foundations upon which an article can be built. Based upon these sources, we would at best be able to provide one paragraph of material the is verifiable per our core content policy.
    
    Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Ph.D. dissertation is usually considered a reliable source. Why not here? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*snort, spits coffee on keyboard* Wow, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. The page says right there in black and white that these are reliable sources. *scratches head, wipes keyboard* I'm now going to have to hunt through history to figure out why I thought that, and thanks for pointing that out.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen: the description of the sketch, and the analysis of its ending, carries on half-way down page 98. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material into a new Monty Python sketches article - There appear to be about 30 WP articles on individual MP sketches. See Template:Monty Python for a list. It appears that virtually all of those have few or no sources justifying notability. Even the notable sketches like The Argument Sketch are poorly sourced. Many of the sketches probably fail the WP:Notability requirement. I suggest that some MP-knowledgeable editor create a new article "Monty Python sketches" which contains a list of all the important sketches (say, 1 or 2 paragraphs each); and we delete the poorly sourced sketch articles. Sketch articles with obvious notability, such as The Argument Sketch, can be kept (although even that needs better sourcing). The new "Sketch" article could be a WP:List article, or just a normal non-List article. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the "delete" part would be totally inappropiate. There's no question that there are sources for this, and that thus we can verify some parts of it, so there's no compelling reason to remove the topic. "Merge" is what has to happen if we want to maintain attribution for the material, a requirement of the GFDL license. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My proposal does not mean the material disappears from the encyclopedia: Im simply suggesting that the material be moved into a broader article that covers several sketches, because the notability of each individual sketch is marginal. For example, look at the very famous The Simpsons show: it does not have articles for each sketch/episode, but instead collects them into groups, for instance there is an article The Simpsons (season 5) that includes about 20 episodes. I'm suggesting that that is the best way to go for Monty Python. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - One important WP policy decision related to this was the famous Pokemon decision from several years ago: there used to be individual WP articles for each Pokemon species, even those that were of marginal/low notability: so the solution was to aggregate them into articles such as List of Pokémon (546–598) ... that is a good compromise solution: the material is still in the encyclopedia, but the importance is not over-emphasized. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just pointing out that the license doesn't fit well with "delete and merge," I thought it was clear I was supporting a merge from the first. Sorry for being unintentionally obfuscatory. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Can you clarify what you mean by "merge"? Do you mean merge this sketch article into some other existing article? Or into a new Monty Python sketches article like I propose? Or something else? --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice at the TV project asking for input on this issue, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Input_needed_re:_individual_articles_for_each_episode.2Fsketch. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... also posted notice of this merge proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Monty_Python#Merge_proposal. -Noleander (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Each sketch is notable, give or take a few sources, but make for very short articles. A list of the notable MP sketches would make the most sense to a comprehensive article that is still notable (possibly even moreso since it's the collection of sketches that MP is known for and not any one particular sketch except perhaps the Parrot one). It's less a notability issue as opposed to style. Redirects should be left behind since all of these are likely search terms. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Monty Python sketches article. As a reader it would be great to have these all in one spot. As an editor it would be easier to work on them in one spot also. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - seeing as MP made dozens and dozens of sketches, such a list might become excessively long. Perhaps merge all sketches into episode or season articles? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 30 WP articles on individual sketches. Assuming 5 are notable and deserve their own articles, that leaves 25 to get merged into List articles. If each sketch were represented with 1 or 2 paragraphs (not unreasonable, since many of the articles are that size), that would be 25-50 paragraphs. That would be a large list, but not too large. If it is too large, breaking it by year may be okay: it looks like MP was on for 5 years: 1969 to 1974, so there could be 5 articles. I don't think breaking the lists by episode would help the situation: there are probably only 2 or 3 (WP article) sketches per episode. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 Seasons might be better than 5 years, it'd be more in line with other TV series lists. Episodes typically had half a dozen sketches, along with animated bits etc. which deserve a brief mention but not an article. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

DJ P-Factor

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only references provided to support notability are Facebook pages, indirectly related fan sites, Twitter pages, and pages anyone can upload to. Lots of SPAs have been giving this article attention (and removing CSD tags, etc.) that AfD seems the best way to handle this one. Singularity42 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article's author has essentially turned the article into a stub: [33]. In its current form, the article could just as easily be deleted under A7. I'm not going to tag as such, as there is some significant content in the article's history. However, I won't oppose if anyone else wants to. Singularity42 (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article was just given some editing to make it in a neutral point of view. Also the newspaper articles found are from tamil newspapers, and they said they dont publish online when i gave them a call. Is there any possibility to scan them and send it to wikipedia? :) . Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialajithkumarfanclub (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the article is written from a netural point of view (that wouldn't be a deletion criteria). This issue is whether there are reliable sources that support this person meeting WP:MUSICBIO. You should check out those criteria. Singularity42 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have cited a article on a newspaper now of p-factor and his band hip hop tamizha performing at a radio station run music festival. I will look into more. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.128.47 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely autobio of BLP. Lacks sufficient sources outside a promotional context. The newspaper article link recently added does improve the page, but can't be considered significant or salient coverage. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BusterD. --Noleander (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sceurman

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

Individual does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Weird NJ. The subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. He does not meet the general notability guidelines either as a gnews search for the past year yields only 2 results. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who created this page. Mark Sceurman may appear to be only a minor person, But the magazine he created , Weird N.J, has been around for nearly twenty years, it's been read and enjoyed by tens of thousands of people and not just in New Jesrey. He helped document history that was never reported anywhere eles. also it led to an entire series of best-selling books detailing weirdness in other states, including Florida, Texas, Pennsylvannia and Illinois, a line of merchandise, and even a TV series on the History Channel. I beleive The fact that he took an underground newsletter and turned it into a profitable publishing empire with interset in other states gives him notability. However it's finding the sources that is the problem, very little has in fact been written on him.Vincelord (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per WP:AUTHOR. Concur with Ryan Vesey. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - joint author of Weird N.J. book, joint publisher of the Weird U.S. books (correction/insertion) and co-host of TV series. [34][35]. Nothing inspiring, but "notability" is a concept intended to prevent abuse, not to assess subjects' eligibility for the Nobel Literature Prize. Perverse to have a WP article on "Weird U.S." and kick out Sceurman. Opbeith (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting eliminating the information about the author: rather, just moving the information to another article. When a fairly minor author is notable for only one thing, and that thing already has a WP article: it is best for readers to combine the two articles together for "one stop shopping". A "redirect" will remain with the author's name, so users searching for the author will find the article. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not too unreasonable on the face of it, but it's been my experience that Redirects and Merges tend to "lose" information on the way. Opbeith (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. above should not be interpreted as a retrenchment from a Keep position - he's still notable as an author and deviser of the book series and television series. Opbeith (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's coveraqe about him when covering the Wierd franchise; for example [36] and [37]. Also, per WP:CREATIVE he meets point 3 as being the co-creator of a well-known collective body of work that has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miocene fauna of north - eastern Paratethys

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

The article is just a brief list of fossils found in an area and doesn't indicate their significance or notability, thus failing WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the most exciting article on Wikipedia, but sourced. Seems no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There are two journal articles about the subject which makes it notable and significant. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't think the article's references strictly pass the General Notability Guidelines, but I really don't see the harm in letting this referenced article survive. It isn't the sort of topic that is going to generate a lot of useless or promotional articles, and while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article seems encyclopedic enough to keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but recreate within broader article - The information in the article appears to be accurate and encyclopedic, however, fossils are an extremely common topic in WP, and this article does not conform to the WP convention for how fossils are documented. Looking at the category Category:Miocene animals that this article belongs to: it is the only article of its kind (single era; single locality). In addition, the WP convention is to use the word "animals" not "fauna". Since the fossil community of WP has not established this class of article, this one-off article should not exist. The Paleontology project should weigh-in here and contribute their vision of how this info should be presented in WP. My suggestion is that a broader-scope article be created, e.g. Miocene animals of Asia and the info be placed in there (looking at Category:Miocene animals helps clarify this). --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced material of scientific merit. I have no objection to a merger as proposed by Noleander, but if performed, the article history should be preserved, making deletion not appropriate. LadyofShalott 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the strata probably belong to a specific Formation which has a name. It would be this that the article should be listed under. Something analogous to Hell Creek Formation. I haven't looked in detail yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netherworlds

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

no independent notability shown for this album. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when this is deleted, the title should be redirected to Netherworld (disambiguation) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This album does not have any reliable sources to prove that this album has received the notability required WP:NALBUMS for it to be an independent article separate from the artist. Doing independent research, very little information was found to note this album as notable. --Rjhymel (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arayidathupalam flyover

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

naveenpf (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "largest x in y" is a very weak claim of importance, and I see no evidence in reliable sources that this particular structure has notability outside of that. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland earthquake

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

Very small earthquake, not notable considering Auckland has experienced earthquakes up to magnitude 6 in the past. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are more notable Auckland quakes. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be appropriate to add a section to Geology of Auckland Region on the rarity of earthquakes in Auckland [38], and perhaps a redirect from Earthquakes in Auckland to that section. However, the content of this article is not suitable to merge into the geology article as the start of that section.-gadfium 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No damage, no injuries, it's merely WP:NEWS and therefore not notable for an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above comments. Probably news because of our one down here in Chch. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because it wasn't a major earthquake, I doubt the article will grow, Wikipedia is not a news journal for every world event. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett D. Johnson

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

Afd on behalf of User talk:99.164.32.24 for the the rationale below, I pass no opinion either way--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC):[reply]

There is no evidence of notability. The only reference is to the subject's own webpage which has now been suspended by his webhost. I also tripped the edit filter for removing about 8k or lorem ipsum. The fact that that sat there unnoticed for over a year shows that nobody's reading the page. Google search doesn't turn up anything resembling a reliable source, mostly Wikipedia mirrors and Facebook.99.164.32.24 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If his plans on healing the planet through positive actions work he may be notable but till then there is no notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable third-party mentions. *begin sarcasm* Wow, he's going to heal the world? Then hands down he needs a Wikipedia page!*end sarcasm* SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Pereira

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

Delete. Unremarkable person who failed as a contestant in a television cooking program. No other claims to notability. WP:SINGLEEVENT. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsuccessful game show contestant. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MasterChef Australia (season 3), the show and season the contestant appeared in. Plausible search term. -- saberwyn 13:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree in that this article is insubstantial to exist on its own. The topic presented could potentially serve as some trivial information in another article but cannot act as an entire article on its own. The information is extremely brief and lacks a purpose, so it has no reason to exist on Wikipedia. --Patrick750 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up Normal

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- apparently unaired television material; "Growing Up Normal" Pinchak gets no hits in the google news archives. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to explain why this never made TV series is notable. I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Mafiha

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also looked at the external links, none are significant coverage, just lists of songs, one is a broken link. J04n(talk page) 02:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put on hold - Is there anyway for someone who is familiar with the subject to provide some information. She would be culturally significant within the Iranian or Persian communities and it could be that the lack of notability is one confined to languages outside that of Farsi. DeusImperator (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring additional sources found. Persian appears to be سیما مافی ها, there's apparently non-reliable results (e.g.., [39]) for that name but nothing I could find that meets GNG. No prejudice against recreation if sources are presented. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Joe decker, couldnt find any reliable sources in farsi in BBC Persian too, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 8 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "MTV Azerbaijan" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Azerbaijan

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

There is a lot of time passed since this news and I am sure plans for MTV Azerbaijan is scrapped. Which means this topic was only rumour. So I request deletion as an author of this topic NovaSkola (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can place a db-author tag on the article and have an admin speedy delete it as an uncontroversial action. Nate • (chatter) 09:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEPOT

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

There is no evidence that the article's subject, which appears to be (the article lacks context) an open-source distributed hash table implementation, is notable. WP:N requires the subject to have non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable secondary sources. The article presently has an external link to the subject's official site. As a primary source, this link does not evidence notability. There does not appear to be any coverage of the subject in sources that can indicate notability. Searching for "Distributed Ensemble of Pages that is Outage tolerant" on Google Web returns 42 "unique" results, all of which appear to be mirrors of this article. Including omitted results, the number of results increases to 110, but the nature of the results is the same as before. Searching Google News, Books, and Scholar returns no results with the exception of an book that is an index to IEEE publications that cannot be previewed. Searching Google Web for DEPOT "distributed hash table" returned a huge number of irrelevant results (262 deemed unique), so Bombay was added to the query, as the subject is an IIT Bombay project. 32 results were returned, all of which are irrelevant. Without Bombay, Google News and Books did not return any results, while Google Scholar returned eight irrelevant ones. Rilak (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as "per nom" is discouraged, the nomination is so thorough I have nothing more to add. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Logan (musician)

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Before arguing that he meets MUSICBIO because he has been in two notable bands, take a close look at the bands, because none of the bands he has been in meet NBAND. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exists, one solo album is listed (on a list, without a review, noting the lack of chart listings) at Billboard verifies that, but I didn't see evidence that would go towards demonstrating notability under GNG or MUSICBIO. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorezone magazine

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

lack of notability, article largely unreferenced, circulation figures false, likely a vanity page by the publisher or his surrogates Bustter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the article's deletion because it's pretty clearly a vanity creation by the editor and publisher, Brynn Hammond. Hammond's imdb biography was written by one of his employees, and something similar seems to have happened here.

The magazine stopped appearing on newsstands several months ago; there's been no official announcement of its demise, and no news coverage either. Certainly a magazine selling over 200,000 copies per month would create some stir with its disappearance -- however, this circulation figure is certainly a lie that originated with the publisher, elsewise it's unlikely it would have ceased publication.

Most telling of all, the official Gorezone Facebook pages (there's a couple of them) have only a couple of hundred members -- how could this be for a 200,000 circulation magazine that only recently ceased publication?

All of this supports my long-held feeling that the article was created by publisher Hammond as a form of advertising, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Bustter (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a neutral party can be found who considers the magazine noteworthy enough to merit a properly-sourced, neutral pov article, and this party is willing to put in the sweat -- great. But opinion of the magazine is generally very low, I doubt such a party will be found. Bustter (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has anything to say? I'll start:

Delete: subject's notability not established, article lacks citations from reliable sources, lacks npov. Bustter (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to argue to keep this based on these [40] [41] [42] [43] [44], but then I noticed that the magazine from the article was first published in 2005, so it can't be the same. There are couple of references out there that do refer to this magazine [45] [46], but not enough to establish notability - frankie (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naked in Black!

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

no real notability shown for this band. no evidence of charting. claims a lot of press but none is shown. the bit hoasted by BBC is not independent. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and claims for notability are not referenced to reliable sources. Although the article has the appearance of referencing, it actually is an assemblage of non-reliable sources tagged into the article seemingly at random as the references don't verify assertions in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. No indication of notability upon searching. Most references cited are unreliable (including references to English and Finnish Wikipedia articles on the same topic). The only reliable independent source found is [47].

Primary contributor (User:Louieblakesarmiento) cites his own blog in the article. Probably a breach of WP:USERG. Article is mainly promotional and WP:POV-ed. Main contributor seems to be intimately connected with the organization, and may be acting under WP:COI. Moray An Par (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete lack of reliable sources to establish notability for this chapter. a lot of the sources used are not reliable. nor is quoting other WP articles actually a real source. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up or userfy - It certainly has some reliable sources, but it is buried in a loss of mess. I think a rescue is possible. This is not a single chapter, but rather a national organization. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uses only primary sources. The seemingly independent reliable sources verify incidental information (i.e. they are not about the subject). I would have also suggested a limited merge with the main article, except that Independent Order of Odd Fellows doesn't have a section where it might fit in.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not aimed for promotion but for historical documentation. I, Louie S. Sarmiento, did an academic research on the history of Odd Fellowship in the Philippines and I am one of its primary historians in the 21st Century. The sources are not mainly based on my own research and writings. Its history in the 19th Century such as in 1872 can be found in the book, History and Geography of the Philippine Islands, written by Major O.W. Coursey and published in 1903. The historical statements about the history in 1898 can be found in the book, History of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in the City of San Francisco, written by Peter Sellars and published in 2007. Historical statements about 1903 can be found in the book, Official History of Odd Fellowshhip: The Three Link Fraternity, published and updated by the Sovereign Grand Lodge yearly or every 50 years. The statement about 1926 can be found in a historical document, the Roster of Members of Manila Lodge no.1 that still exists now and in a museum. The modern history is an account of the modern happenings and an official Odd Fellows charter exists which can verify the existence of Kapatirang Watchdog Lodge no.1 and Kapatirang Mindanaon Lodge no.2, same as the encampment and Canton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Louie's comment was refactored. Please place your comments/responses after the existing comments. Moray An Par (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The modern history was published in the California Odd Fellow and Rebekah Magazine, Volume 59, no.1, in March 2010. Cite: Odd Fellowship in the Philippines. (2010, March). California Odd Fellow and Rebekah, 59, 1, 8. Libstar has personal issues about the Odd Fellows and has tried many times destroying the reputation of the said fraternal organization by criticizing and making so many allegations. We should be scholarly and work towards peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In order to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, you need to meet the criteria outlined in that page and more importantly, you need to prove it.

Primary sources (sources published by the subject itself like the two you just mentioned) also do not prove notability and are not considered reliable sources for most purposes. See WP:42.

Lastly, the tone of the article is promotional. As an editor with a conflict of interest (close to the subject matter), you probably can not see this. This is why COI editing is discouraged, because people closely connected to the subject are seldom able to maintain an objective tone. The entire article, honestly, reads like a pamphlet. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if you were able to prove notability, huge parts of the article will still most likely be removed for being inappropriate.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Link

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

Company received some coverage in the press but as can be seen from this posting by the company the service is unlikely to launch any time soon, if at all. The company fails notability for organisations. Given that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I don't see the point in keeping this article as it stands. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it matters that the business is failing. The fact that several sources have mentioned the proposed crossing route, I think it qualifies as notable. It may be worth mentioning in the article that the business is looking increasingly unlikely if there is a reliable source for it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as just about notable. Lack of success could in principle be as notable as success. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Phi Delta

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

No significant coverage indicating notability. Cited references also do not establish notability as none makes mention of the organization. Moray An Par (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RazorUSA. And protect from recreation. Sandstein 05:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ripstik

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

Non-notable product already covered adequately by caster board. This article has previously been redirected to caster board and I suggest that the article is deleted and the redirect established. I did this but as an editor reverted I am bringing it to AfD instead. Furthermore, little has changed since the original AfD, which resulted in deletion and redirect to caster board. Biker Biker (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the first AFD and move/create-protect against further disruption. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected, the target should be RazorUSA, which now has an article. Redirecting a brand name to a type of product should be avoided, as it implies that the target should contain a list of brands or manufacturers. Peter E. James (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The actress may well be notable based on the cited coverage, but right now we have a completely unsourced contested WP:BLP, which makes deletion mandatory under our current application of that policy. Can be userfied and, once sourced, restored. Sandstein 05:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Chaplin

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

Delete as non-notable. No claim to notability at all except for surname. [email protected] (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of credits appears sufficient to satisfy WP:ENT, and even a cursory GNews search turns up NYTimes coverage, including a miniprofile and a film review [48] [49]; plus lots of non-English language coverage. Lousy article, but the fact that its author cared only about family ties doesn't mean she's not otherwise notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Just because someone is a progeny of someone notable does not make you notable. There is also a threshold of notability required. This threshold is not met here. DeusImperator (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When googled she has no notable achievements. Also, just because someone has famous family members that does not make them famous themselves. --Rvanwinkle1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Below is some of the significant coverge she has. Some are primarily her talking about herself but enough are not. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ansermoz, Claude (25 June 2011), "Dolores Chaplin croque", 24 Heures (in French)

"Dolores Chaplin: son nom, sa vie et Astérix!", La Tribune de Genève (in French), 6 May 2011

Aust, Bettina (25 March 2007), "Dolores Chaplin - "Ich glaube an ein Happy End"", Welt am Sonntag (in German)

"The importance of being Chaplin", Hindustan Times, 29 November 2005

Souperbie, Bastien (28 December 2007), "Dolores Chaplin: son nom, sa vie et Astérix!", Sud Ouest (in French)

Barron, James (25 November 1999), "A Quick Talker, Unlike Grandfather", The New York Times

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mass (album). Courcelles 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hand to Mouth (Grotus song)

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

Contested redirect to Mass (album). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mass (album). The only sources I can find for the song contain what appears to be passing mentions within reviews for the album [50][51]. Without more significant coverage, subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salem (Michigan band). Courcelles 11:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frost (song)

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

Contested redirect to Salem (Michigan band). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salem (Michigan band). Courcelles 11:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OhK

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

Contested redirect to Salem (Michigan band). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlGhatam

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

Disputed prod. Family bio with absolutely no references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't seemt show significant importance, and only holds a blogspot page for a reference. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must point out that the article neither has "absolutely no references" nor "only holds a blogspot page for a reference". I don't know how it is invisible to the editors commenting above that it has a reference to Al-Arabiya. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references and the article would take a lot to improve. I don't think its worth improving because there are no reliable resources and there are many style errors, even in the first sentence.--Sarah.Maretich (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why are you claiming that there are no references when there is very clearly a reference to Al-Arabiya? The subject may or may not be notable, but, at the very least, a decision on deletion should be based on an analysis of any sources presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Palma, Anthony (April 27, 1997). "Canada Paves the Way To Prince Edward Island". New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2011.

[1]