Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 5

< 4 July	6 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 to Recovery (Eminem album). Shimeru 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Love (Eminem song)

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

This is a charted song from the album not a single. Per WP:NSONGS as it has no independent coverage and there is not enough detail to produce a detailed quality page it is not notable for an idependent article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the lister inadvertently started a second AfD on the same subject, which I am deleted under WP:CSD#G6. The rationale was similar, but slightly different. I am including it here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, error was down to twinkle duplicating the nom. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Restore when its noteable. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No confirmation of it being a single. Even if it were, there is not enough available information on the article for it to withstand on its own. Candyo32 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is reliable enough, keep. Otherwise, redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) per WP:NSONGS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weak article: the song's notability is only inherited from the album. Merge with Recovery (Eminem album). SteveStrummer (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a confirmation that it will be a single and really nothing other than its charts establish notability. Str8cash (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, even if article is deleted a redirect in its place would be appropriate. I don't see a compelling reason to delete the page history if the end result is the same. Swarm^Talk 07:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a single IJA (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Clearly a non-notable neologism that would be better suited as an idea incorporated into the Bribery or a related Corruption article. Sources would probably support that kind of inclusion if introduced properly. Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient grease

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

Non-notable neologism. Google hits. Only the first page has results about this use of "efficient grease". Everything else is about machines. mboverload @ 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've improved the references now, and hope to continue to do so.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a mainstream or notable theory. The sources, of questionable reliability, all cite the same person, one P.G. Méon, who with his partner L. Weill seems to be the sole propounder of this theory, citing the same research over and over. The first two sources in the article cite them. The third source cited argues that the hypothesis is false. Everything I can find on Google is about them. Google Scholar finds only Méon and various co-authors, with some citations but not an impressive number. Could be redirected or merged to Political corruption. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MelanieN. Non-notable neo. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Even if (and that's a big IF) this term gains popular acceptance, it still doesn't need an article but a redirect to bribery or Political corruption would be sufficient, as per MelanieN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't feel it meets WP:N. Swarm^Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell 'Em Steve Dave!

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}}.

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

This podcast fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web content. The objection to the proposed deletion of this article was that the podcast "has a large listener base, is planning a live tour, and features hosts of cult fame". The large listener base is not verified in secondary sources. The live tour suggests possible future notability, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The hosts of cult fame are notable themselves, but notability is not inherited. In short, there this podcast has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per the general notability guideline and should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the iTunes podcast ratings and the fact that both Walter and Bryan both have several IMDB credits for some pretty high profile films, like Clerks shows that this article is entirely valid and should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.242.58 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exactly what he said. So Keep. Toontown59153 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC) — Toontown59153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because you talk into a microphone in your mom's basement and nobody listens to it, doesn't mean that every other podcast is as unsuccessful as yours. These guys rocked 1,000 people live in Brantford, are going on a tour around the country, and have a great listener base that is evident on iTunes and their Twitter account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.163.219 (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — 74.251.163.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By the very fact that it was voted number one podcast in Australia shows that the podcast has a large following and so should be recognised by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.43.93 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — 86.128.43.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you can link to a source about it being voted the number one podcast in Australia that would be helpful. If anyone can link to iTunes podcast ratings that would be helpful too. (I'm not certain where such ratings can be found. As the author of a new podcast on iTunes, I have been led to believe that it's difficult to get such figures, but maybe someone knows something I don't.) As a fan of TESD I'm hoping the wiki page remains, but insulting this guy isn't going to help. Wiki's guidelines are clear. I thing TESD meets those guidelines, but we have to prove it. Agincourtdb (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it will meet notability guidelines, because I don't know how many reliable sources there are yet. To all of the fans of the podcast coming here to argue, it's not about the quality or the popularity of the podcast, the problem is with how many reliable sources (meaning not message boards or personal blogs) have covered it. And simply being a spin-off of a popular podcast doesn't count either. If the article is deleted now, that isn't to say that it can't be re-created once such sources exist. On the other hand, I did find two sources that MAY help. One is from The Pitch, and the other is from a local newspaper in Brantford, Ontario. [1] and [2] Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thescene.com.au/Trash/VF/Top-5-Podcasts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.116.44 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to try and build a rough consensus from within the community as opposed to as a result of off-wiki canvassing, which looks like is going on above. –MuZemike 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that, smh. By the way, delete per WP:WEB. All the users saying "keep" seem to be SPAs that haven't read WP:ILIKEIT. And if it has a large following, that alone isn't enough to be considered notable on Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability requirements as discussed. Etrigan (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are some sources, but at present I don't think they're sufficient for notability. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rex-Meyer

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

Non-notable company that does not justify inclusion –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They used to make yachts; they're out of business. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weak content with no indication of notability; lacks sources. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Toshiki Yui. Shimeru 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa

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

A search for reliable third-party sources comes up only with illegal scanlation websites and the occasional forum post. Fails both the WP:NOTE and WP:BK inclusion guidelines. Prod disputed on the bases that another WikiProject had to agree to the proposed deletion of the article and that I was somehow showing WP:OWNership for originally prodding the article for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I never said you thought you own this article. Instead, I suggested that as long as another WikiProject tagged this article as being "of interest" to them, we need consensus from a number of people to delete the article. There is presently one reference in the article, to Anime News Network, which is neither an illegal scanlation site nor a forum posting. Maybe someone can find more. But we don't have any consensus -- and it's necessary. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read about the WP:PROD procedures. Also, I don't need the consent or input of another WikiProject in order to propose an article for deletion nor is it a good reason to remove a prod tag. And finally, the ANN Encyclopedia is user-edited and is not a reliable source. Last time you were told this by different editors, you blew up and threw a temper-tantrum. —Farix (t | c) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're losing your temper, Farix. Anyone can suggest anything for deletion and anyone can agree or object. We all know that. You and I differ about the reliability of ANN, but that makes no difference. Deleting the article needs consensus, not action by one person, you or me. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search for this manga using its Japanese title ""ボクのふたつの翼" and got about 2000 hits. I'm not going through them to find which might be reliable or not. Now, this, it seems to me, is a question of whether or not the English Wikipedia can ignore material in languages other than English when we try to assess what is and is not "notable." But if these sources count -- personally, I think they should -- then this manga is clearly notable. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a case of the English Wikipedia ignoring material in languages other than English; there are no Japanese-language sources in evidence at all, just blogs and booksellers: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The jawiki article is similarly unsourced. cab (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to a minimal merge of the verifiable and relevant content either (e.g. the list of ISBNs of editions in which it was published). cab (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an interesting article and no worse than a great deal of other stuff on Wikipedia. It needs work -- it's a stub. I say give it a chance. User cab said the Japanese search gave "just blogs and booksellers." I admit I wonder about that; I put my comment up about my search at 00:15, 6 July, and he replied at 00:26, July 6 -- giving 11 minutes to examine some 2000 websites. But, OK, I'll accept it -- it's mostly blogs and booksellers. Which, it seems to me, goes a long way to demonstrating notability of this manga in Japan even if we can't use the blogs as reliable sources. Likewise, even if we can't cite the Japanese Wikipedia, that article too indicates that the manga is notable. So let it stay. It's harmless. Timothy Perper (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I got 441 non-duplicate Google hits. That's 9 pages. Scanning that in 10 minutes is hardly a suspicious accomplishment, especially when most of it is such obvious junk. cab (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toshiki Yui as the author is a notable mangaka. --Malkinann (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I did a great deal of cleanup of my CSE hits, and even then, it's junk. Whatever sources of notability there may be for this series, looks to me like they're not available from the anglophone Internet. --Gwern (contribs) 07:18 6 July 2010 (GMT)

Here's a review. It's in English. http://www.fightbait.com/boku-futatsu-tsubasa-wings-2/ I found it in the list you generated. The reviewer thought the manga was sort of silly, but doesn't doubt the interest of the futanari. Yes, you're right -- I didn't search the Anglophone internet, but used the Japanese title ボクのふたつの翼 and got some 2080 hits, about 1800 of them in Japanese, many for booksellers and blogs. I didn't examine them for reviews. I also got some 264 hits in English (I just repeated the search about five minutes ago with the same results), most them booksellers, blogs, and scanlators.

I now think that merging is the best solution. Here's why I changed my mind. The article contains a longish description of the plot and characters, but there is no official English translation of the manga. So I suspect that the description given in the article is based on a scanlated version, and I don't think we should use it. But the basic description of what the manga is about is all over the web, including the review above. So merge what's left with the Toshiki Yui page.

Timothy Perper (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we never use fightbait.com, and offhand, doesn't look like it would pass our more stringent editors' RS standards. --Gwern (contribs) 04:19 8 July 2010 (GMT)

I think you're misunderstanding me, in good faith, but still misunderstanding what I'm saying. Doesn't matter what "we use" or not -- I'm not talking about what to put into the article. I'm talking about deleting or keeping the article, not rewriting it. So it's a matter of whether or not there's evidence on the web for the popularity or for fan-interest in "My Two Wings." That is a matter of notability and not of reliability. Whether "we" like it or not, there's a lot of evidence for notability of Yui's manga. It is NOT a high school kid's cartoon drawn in the high school newspaper -- which he thinks makes him "notable" and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. "My Two Wings" has some 2000 hits in Japanese web sources; a number of sources in English-language websites; a complete scanlation; and (up to now, at least) even a Wiki article, this one, which was put up in good faith three years ago. Whether we like it or not, "My Two Wings" is notable.

The question is "now what"? I don't like the fightbait review any more than you do, and I have serious reservations about scanlations. But, nonetheless, scanlations have become one of the most popular sources for manga in the non-Japanese speaking world (references some other time). So what do we do about it? One answer is "nothing" -- ignore it because it fails various wiki-tests. But that puts us increasingly behind the curve in how manga and anime are both moving in the world -- scanlations and fansubs may be legally dubious, but they're extremely popular. We can ignore them, taking the high moral ground and feeling pleased with ourselves, but the world of fan enthusiasms is not on the same moral wavelength. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. So the question is what do scanlations and blogs and all the other "unreliable" sources mean, all issues of morality and legality aside.

Maybe that's clearer? Timothy Perper (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added later. I believe that Wikipedia exists to put up articles of interest to readers. It doesn't exist to make editors' egos feel good. It's a service to people "out there." To me, "notable" means "notable to our readers," not "notable to us personally." No one -- least of all me! -- is saying we should start citing scanlation sites! But their existence proves that readers are interested in certain titles, and we have to take that fact into consideration when we write, edit, or keep/merge/delete articles. I just googled "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" and got 170,000 hits. That's a lot of interest. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still later: guess what the top item is on the list of 170,000 hits? It's this Wiki article. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The very first thing I did when setting up my CSE was throw in a ton of blacklists to get rid of mirrors and mechanical variations on Wikipedia. It is of course possible that Wikipedia could get used for PR and the consequences of the PR subsequently make something notable, but that is rarely the case and we should stick to sources which are independent of Wikipedia... --Gwern (contribs) 05:28 9 July 2010 (GMT)

I agree in part -- but I don't see that Wikipedia itself can "make" something notable. In fact, my impression is that fans ignore Wikipedia, not that that flatters us, but I don't read fans talking about "Wiki says this" or "Wiki says that" when I read fan-written material. I sincerely doubt that the majority of those 170,000 hits are Wiki mirror sites, but I'll go test that next and let you know what happens. So we're still stuck with a lot of fan interest in "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." I'll be back in a bit. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just googled a few pages using "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" with various other terms. This time I got 154,000 hits for "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." I went through the first few pages and then sampled; I found lots and lots of download sites (this manga really is popular) but no Wiki mirror sites. When I searched for various combinations of the title plus "wiki" or "wikipedia" I got far fewer -- "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" wiki = 1490 sites (= 1490/154000 < 1%); "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" wikipedia = 1100 sites (= 1100/154000 < 1%). So it doesn't look like many of those 154,000 sites are Wikipedia mirror sites. I also found a few Spanish-language download sites (which I won't give the URLs for!) so there is at least some interest in "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" among fans who read Spanish. This manga seems to be quite popular. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot to mention. I also searched Google using the language option, asking for results in French only and in German only for "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa". I wanted to see if there are scanlations in languages other than English, and the answer is Yes. Once again, I will NOT provide the URLs.

And maybe it'd be wise to say this again. I am not saying that we need to cite any of these scanlations; in fact, I oppose doing that. But we also need to understand that scanlations are a measure of popularity, illegal as it might be, among fans. The existence of a French-language version of "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" indicates that at least some Francophone manga fans are willing to break the law to obtain copies of this manga. The same is true for US fans. My point is once again that these facts indicate that "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" is in fact quite popular, and therefore de facto "notable." Timothy Perper (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough evidence of notability found. No licensor in English, French, German, Spanish & Italian found. Found licensor in Taiwan. Scanlation is complete. No reserve for recreation of the article in the future if the series get licensed in NA or Europe. --KrebMarkt 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per objections of Timothy Perper--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Malkinann's reasons. Etrigan (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toshiki Yui. Edward321 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Toshiki Yui. It's a popular manga for a reason, but as far as I can tell it has escaped critical notice (darn it).That it hasn't yet been licensed in Europe doesn't help that situation. If, one day, someone can demonstrate it passes WP:BK, then we can revisit. Because of that popularity, we definitely need to keep a redirect as a probable search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge Not sure I know how to change my vote, but that's the idea. Quasirandom is absolutely right. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article lead only to Toshiki Yui. What is there to merge anyways? A redirect would be just as helpful but for plot sake I say merge the lead as it least talks about what this manga ia about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Heeney

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. He's the director of a architecture company and "lead creative teams" to design some large buildings. It also talks about how he served on the boards of "various community organizations." mboverload @ 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the sources provide only tangential coverage (some don't even mention him, making it look better sourced than it is). Christopher Connor (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resilience (band)

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

Non-notable band. Hasn't hit any music charts that I can find. Fails WP:MUSIC. -WarthogDemon 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find this article from Metro Silicon Valley. Not much else though.--Michig (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I found a brief discussion of them in this article in the Los Angeles Times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also able to find one more bit of passing coverage [3], but so far only the Metro article seems to meet "non-trivial", so WP:MUSIC does not appear to be met. Close, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet threshold of notability. Coverage is too low. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos aponte (Got Talent)

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

Only claim to fame is a single popular performance on Americas Got Talent. 37,000 GHits. I can't personally justify an article. Looking for input. If I'm wrong I'm willing to withdraw the nom. Not familiar with the criteria for talent contestants. mboverload @ 22:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - re: WP:PROMOTION. No evident notability for an individual article; no sources given. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and there are currently 2 articles on this person Carlos aponte (singer), both up for deletion. Mcmatter (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not even make it to top 48 in the competition. I would have speedy deleted this except for this AFD! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to close this discussion and proceed with a CSD, or once it's started should we let it ride out? Mcmatter (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aural Fixations (compilation)

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

Non-notable comp, Google shows nothing special —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial information. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 00:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Silva

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

This is an unreferenced BLP about someone who works for the UFC. When I went to the UFC web page and searched for his name, I got 0 hits (making me wonder how crucial he is to the UFC). The article fails to show notability and has been tagged for a lack of references for over a year. He's listed as a martial artist, but he fails WP:MANOTE. If this article can be sourced and rewritten to show notability (instead of being an ad), I'd be happy to see it kept. Papaursa (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & I'll improve once the AFD is completed - Silva is vital to UFC. He books every single match-up. However, the article is shocking at the moment. Stub status however, is not a reason for deletion here. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's money-where-the-mouth-is time now, not later. Vague handwaving that you might do something unspecified at some unspecified point in the future isn't good enough. Where are the sources that you could work from to write an article on this? Lack of sources very much is a reason for deletion, and has been per Wikipedia:Deletion policy pretty much all along. Our content policies apply strictly in the cases of biographies. Cite sources now. Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would someone do that in the middle of an AFD? It's just prone to deletion even so, thus ramping up deleted edits. Pointless. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it's the way to make a keep argument that actually holds water, which your vague handwaving does not. I repeat: cite sources now. They are your only argument. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Papaursa's research. Sorry, Paralympiakos, but UncleG is right. Reyk _YO! 12:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - One doesn't even need to add the references to the article, presenting them here in the AFD would be sufficient to allow editors to review and decide on notability. Of course, adding them to the article would be best. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. I presume that's all fine now. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same guy mentioned in all the Google news results for "Joe Silva" AND "Wrestling"? [4] Decades ago, did he get news coverage for winning wrestling matches in the 110 pound category? If its him getting coverage, then that counts as notable. Dream Focus 15:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, unreferenced BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. At best, a mention in UFC or another appropriate article would suffice. SnottyWong ^comment 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and no notability shown. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] all mention him to varying degrees as the UFC matchmaker. but aside from that, I can find no toher information being written about him. If there were some profile write up in a martial arts magazine or something along those lines, then this would tip over to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He is UFC's matchmaker. A Google search for "Joe Silva" and UFC comes up with 198,000 results. Most of the hits are MMA related news sites that reference him being the UFC matchmaker/booker. However, looking through the results, there seems to be very little information about Silva himself. I think he is notable, but the problem may be writing a decent article about him. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the notability. When an article and its sources talk about lacking background info on its subject, it's hard to claim the guy is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Businesscore

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

No evidence that genre is notable. C1k3 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedily. This is a neologism that doesn't seem to have ever been used (the best way to Google for the term seems to be like this). And it doesn't help that the article creator hasn't been on Wikipedia since s/he made the article three years ago. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Erpert. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CX KiDTRONiK

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

Non-notable person. Notability tag has been on the page for over a year and a half. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. Notability hasn't been asserted, and the only sources are KiDTRONiK's Myspace and Twitter. In fact, this could probably go under CSD-A7. --ANowlin: talk 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article about him in The Baltimore Sun. [10] Multiple sources have noted his tours with artists like Saul Williams and Girl Talk. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GHBL

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

Non-notable amateur sports league. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hundreds of adult baseball leagues. This one is no more notable than the others. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:GNG. We need a guideline for sports leagues and teams, but for now WP:GNG will have to do. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 01:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this page after I came across the wiki page for the NCBL which is essentially the same league as the GHBL, only the NCBL encompasses players from south eastern Ontario and the GHBL from south central Ontario (about 4 hours apart by car). The leagues are of similar size (35 teams NCBL, 27 teams GHBL) and skill level (4 Tiers NCBL, 3 Tiers GHBL). One of the GHBL Burlington teams has competed in and twice won the annual NCBL tournament. In my opinion if the NCBL has a wiki page the GHBL should have one as well. — Beerbaseman (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think NCBL needs to go through an AfD as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The comparison that you are making is sometimes called the Pokemon test. If you can find reliable sources that show that the information about the league is verifiable and notable, I'd reverse my argument in a second.Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new here, ok now I understand. So if I can find an independent newspaper article outlining the growth of the league, or an article about fundraising and the league's effect on the community, etc, than that infers Notability. I am not sure what else I can find, my only argument was from inclusion of the NCBL article. This is a new league so maybe it will need to sustain itself for a number of years before it gains Notability. Thanks for the comments. Beerbaseman (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, newspaper, magazine, etc., something edited, independent of the source (e.g., not a reprinted press release, so [11] wouldn't count), Your understanding is appreciated, saying something is "non-notable" can be confusing and offputting, but it's not personal, just about having enough reliable secondary sources to write a good article. Thanks again for understanding that! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent, secondary coverage, appears to fail the GNG.--j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Fight It Baby

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

Fails WP:NSONG, no third party coverage, not released, just an album track. articles keep being created by a user who wants to turn wikipedia into his personal five fansite. Mister sparky (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invincible (Five album). The article claims the song was a single, but I can find no sources stating this. The aforementioned album article says four singles were released from the album--this not being one of them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content, no sources: no notability. Recommend a merge into album article. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article has been deleted in 3 different AfDs, and the last one was less than 4 months ago. At that one, it was suggested that, due to persistent recreation, it be SALTed this time. If it's recreated again that's exactly what I'll do. Anyone who thinks the topic has suddenly become notable should take it to WP:DRL. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia

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

Non-notable software product. After four previous AfDs, the last one five months ago, I cannot see that it has gained any notability lately. Haakon (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: more than 400 hits on Gnews for Jahia (yes, not all for this but lots of it), article on French wiki since May 2007; therefore this article needs more content and refs, but is notable in my eyes. Dewritech (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have no idea where to add my comments, the deletion for review page is full with stuff about other software I have no Idea of, WIKIPEDIA FIX YOUR INTERFACE!!! However, Jahia is one of the leading CMS systems. That your own private blogs runs on 'wordpress' or 'drupal' or Joomla, and you know it, doesn't mean that CMS systems in the enterprise world shouldn't get noticed. Wikipedia turns more and more away from a democracy into a elete set of users that have 'Authority' and like there status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.9.171.121 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (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 redirect to Northumbria shootings. — Timneu22 · talk 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Thomas Moat

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

Seems to be clear WP:BLP1E. — Timneu22 · talk 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC) he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. wait and see whether it turns big or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.47.241 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PERP as well as only being known for one event. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, and WP:PERP. Location (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple events, multiple days of coverage in major secondary sources = "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Colonel Warden, is recieving significant national coverage, as as per WP:N/CA and "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". This is lead headline in pretty much every UK national newspaper and tv news outlet for two days. At the very least, deletion should be delayed as per WP:EVENT - "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge" OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and change emphasis to event. BLP1E states "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I believe that the event itself has received enough high profile coverage to not fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Given the nature of the crimes, this is highly unlikely to be a flash in the pan news story. Quantpole (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PERP as well as only being known for one event. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a rare and significant crime, in England at least. It's extremely rare we have a case like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.24.78 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding IP commenter has few other edits. — Timneu22 · talk 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now at least and see how it progresses. There's a new twist to this story today with police now saying they have been dealing with a hostage situation, and the apparent arrest of two suspects on conspiracy to commit murder charges, who were previously believed to have been hostages. If we were to keep this it would have to be renamed to something different such as Northumbria shootings or Tyneside shootings (apologies for any title errors here, I'm not familiar with the area). There have been several days of news coverage now and multiple events, so it probably passes the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY tests. Does it pass WP:NOTNEWS? Possibly. Crimes such as this are rare in the UK, but sadly becoming more frequent. One other thing, the article will need some serious work to improve it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article looks much better now and I like the move to Northumbria shootings. Several events to make this notable. I would now go for a strong keep. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This article should be renamed something like '2010 Northumbria shootings' or something like. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my vote to keep and review if the article was renamed quickly. We don't normally on principle name articles after murderers, unless they are significant/multiple. See Cumbria shootings, which presently seems more significant on many counts. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been pretty bold and moved the article. This shouldn't affect whether it's kept or not, but should be correct per WP:MOS. I've also restructured and rewritten the article to comply with WP:BLP1E and be more about the event than the individual – I used Cumbria shootings as a guide. matt (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly a highly notable UK event. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. At this point there does seem to be significant coverage of the event. However, it's still a one-time event for the person. In these cases, it is typical that the person's name redirects to the event article. That's what we have now. I think everything is in good shape after MattGirling's move. Probably nothing left to do here. (Withdraw not possible, as some have voted "delete" already.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as an article about events that are clearly notable. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was not about the events. We need to close this. — Timneu22 · talk 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gang Entertainment

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

Non-notable record label, fails WP:COMPANY. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too unknown record label. Karppinen (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezequiel Trumper

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

Non-notable individual, vanity bio, obviously written by the subject. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (but not WP:AUTO). I cannot find significant coverage for this person. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. No substantial coverage. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hedgepeth

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

I previously speedied this, but there's at least some assertion this time and it's not pure advertising, so bringing to AfD. The mention from the Washington Post is trivial and in passing, and does not cover the subject of the article in any depth. I can't find anything that does, so as far as I can tell, this article is unsustainable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The initial article from Hip Hop Republican is not an advertisement, but a profile of the candidate. For those who are interested in learning about the candidate, the profile of Mr. Hedgepeth details personal information about him.
Dave Hedgepeth is a political candidate and therefore it would be advantageous to both residents of Washington DC and Wikipedia viewers to have a page on him. While the coverage of him in the media is not comparable to a movie star or a candidate that became a living sensation overnight (see Alvin Greene), he has appeared on local television, the radio and been mentioned in the printed media as well. I sincerely hope you reconsider and I promise to continue to update the page with objective information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsmandel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about rectifying what you perceive to be unfair political coverage. It is about systematizing existing human knowledge, already acknowledged by the world at large and properly published outside of Wikipedia. We don't write biographies in the way that you are doing. For reasons that are well-known and that one would have had to have actually tried fairly hard to avoid learning over the past few years, we insist that biographies are written properly. You are not writing properly if you cannot show proof to readers, as you write, that, say, this person went to the schools that you claim, or was proud to do various things. (How do we know xe was proud? Who researched this and recorded the fact? What proof outside of potentially self-serving autobiography do you have of anything claimed about this person?) If the world has not already independently and reliably documented a person's life and works in depth outside of Wikipedia, that person cannot have xyr life and works documented in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I quite understand how "Uncle G" can accuse my page to have been written improperly when 1) he himself does not use correct spelling or grammar and 2) numerous sites do not cite every single detail. I do admit using the word "proud" was a mistake, but I think it would be a bigger mistake to remove the page based on this subjective gauge you all are using on the candidate's coverage in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.252.98 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Major WP:COI issues here as well. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and VQuakr. The subject fails because under our notability guidelines, a politician must normally be elected first to a major office, before being considered notable for the reason of being involved in politics. Candidates for office are rarely considered automatically eligible for inclusion, barring special circumstances. Even if he were elected to this office, it is not entirely clear that he'd be considered notable per se. While legislators at the state and national level, and mayors of large cities, are considered notable, I can't recall any consensus about DC councillors. If he got elected Mayor of Washington, DC, then he would be considered notable. Based on past precedent at AfD, city councillors, even of large cities, are almost never notable -- unless they are at large, act as president pro tempore, or get substantial media coverage, for example, Harvey Milk or Carol Schwartz. A quick search of sources finds nothing that proves notability. Hedgepeth fails, for now, at being notable enough. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ring

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

Notability, reliable sources, and conflict of interest are issues. Appears to be promotional, with descriptions of work without any sources to support their significance, and many sources that are either not reliable, or that make only a glancing reference to the subject. Not a single reliable source specifically about this artist. Discussed at article talk page [12]. JNW (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources on Cafka, not Rob Ring. Racconish^Tk 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage of subject. Spammy and promotional. SPA and COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Nukes

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Google

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

This page is redundant to Template:Google Inc. and List of Google products. This also does not seem to be a suitable topic for an Outline (though any specific criteria have yet to be hammered out). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to just be a link page about Google that would just be on the Google page. Toontown59153 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NULL: I can't decide what my "vote" is... ~~There really is no set guidelines (like the notability guideline) for an outline, which means a different style of debate is in order.~~ Why do we have (redundant) outlines? Google is a perfectly notable topic, and Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Surmountable_problems states AFD is not for cleanup, so expand it or tag it or whatever. Perhaps you ought to start a discussion. —mono 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though I have never really agreed with the concept of outlines, I think the current "consensus" is that they are allowable, and this one doesn't seem too limited in scope. —fetch ·comms 23:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links could be move into a collapsible box on the Google Page, an entire page is unnecesary. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an alternative form of navigation. It is appropriate to have an article like this for every broad topic (or at least each popular broad topic) that warrants it by having a sufficient group of articles (where the line is I do not know--perhaps 30 to 50 articles). That other forms of navigation could do this alwso is not a factor--we can have as many as we like as long as people will maintain them. (Myself, this is the type of navigational aid that I think really does add value, beyond that in the templates, lists and categories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but it might do best at a category if it already isn't. Allmightyduck (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google is certainly a notable topic and this provides a good form of navigation. I do however agree with Fridae'§Doom that a collapsable box on the Google page would be better. Andrewmc123 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Something like this is a useful navigational aid that would be worsened by translation into a list or category. I'd prefer to see it translate to a collapsable template (that could be included on all the relevant Google articles), which I think would be even a stronger navigational aid, but I would !vote keep even if that weren't an option. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (Weakened after my understanding was corrected by Quiddity below) --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Decker and Andrewmc: Did you see Template:Google Inc. as mentioned in my nom statement? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction, I don't know how I missed that in your nom. Embarassing. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quiddity, whose reasoning I'm going to repeat and expand upon. First off, the outline is awfully redundant to Template:Google Inc. (obviously). In addition, List of Google products does an excellent job of not only listing, but also describing Google's many products (while doing it with far more items than the outline lists). I kind of like the idea of outlines, but when the previously-mentioned template and the list of products exist, I see no reason to keep the outline which is not only redundant, but also seems to be less comprehensive (and as such less useful) than the other pages. Of course, the outline can be expanded to be extremely comprehensive (which is why using its lack of comprehension as a reason for deletion is not a good one by even my own standards), but even if it is fixed up, it would still be pretty redundant IMO, and as such is unneeded. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that AfD is not for cleanup. If you want to fix it up, just do it. —mono(how's my driving?) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know, I stated (or at least tried to) that it's not a valid reason for deletion at the end of my comment myself. My view on it is that it is simply repetitive, no matter if it is cleaned up and expanded to the full extent. But that's just my opinion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "repetitive" -- or "redundant" applies here. There are multiple ways to organize articles in WP. outlines are one of them, and there is no reason to delete them just because the other ways exist also. Categories, lists, outlines, templates--it may sound like too many, but as there is no consensus on which of the works best, and every likelihood each of them may work best for some particular purpose purposes. If people are willing to maintain it there is no reason to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to Keep. I still think they're a bit repetitive, but I've been convinced of their usefulness by reading the essay, but mostly by reading and going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. There already is Template:Google Inc. and Category:Google. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 32.174.87.106 [13] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Just as there ought to be--all 3 are valid methods of guidance and organization. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OLWHY. SnottyWong ^confess 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. I am a supporter of the general purpose of these outlines and I do think this one in particular goes beyond the existing list, template, and category. That being said, we don't appear to have much criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of outlines so I would suggest that the practice on their deletion would get written down somewhere. Them From Space 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by any other name, an outline is a list. Its just organized a bit differently and there is ample precedent for them.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: really useful outline/list - just needs improving. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - would be sensible outline if someone could write some prose. I agree it doesn't serve much of a purpose at the moment (apart from as a weak navigational list), but there's room for improvement, and WP:NODEADLINE applies here. Claritas § 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DWTFYWWI

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

I have not been able to find a reliable secondary source for this term. (WP:V) Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this article is cool, but if you disagree, then go ahead and DWTFYWWI. See if I care. :p Tisane ^talk/_stalk 19:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! Marasmusine (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - Agree with the nom, lack of secondary source for this term. Codf1977 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3 Fleet Command (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to report this to the Alliance Against A3 Abuse. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It's nice to see that I haven't lost my touch as an abusive Wikipedian. (Yes, sarcasm intended!) Fleet Command (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEO or WP:HOAX: the article's only link says "I created this as a parody". SteveStrummer (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indeed, the only link describes this license as a GPL parody. It has 3 clauses all of which are funny (check them out!) but that does not mean it deserves a wikipedia article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (NAC) Swarm^Talk 03:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Guppy

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

Non-notable TV commentator. Ridernyc (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this some kind of joke? :) From what I see above, it reminds me a lot of the amusing example in wp:ITSNOTABLE. "Non-notable" or "Seems to be notable" are no reasons for deletion/keeping. Can you please clarify why he isn't notable in your opinion? Anyway, a simple Google search returns plenty of reliable sources and significant coverage. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then share them because my Google searches return tons of articles he has written promoting himself and very few independent substantive articles about him as a subject. Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source now, but there are a lot more. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of Australian writers (authors) on Share Trading Guppy is probably the most successful in terms of international acceptance and recognition. To describe him as a non-notable TV commentator may be correct in a US context or even among Australian TV commentators, but totally ignores his authorship of the books listed on the page I established and the scale of his operations as a businessman. The combination of authorship, publishing business, international offices, TV commentator on financial matters, speaker at Financial conferences alongside people like Bollinger, and having invented a technical analysis technique that has been included in some charting software (Metastock) altogether makes him notable as an Australia financial writer dinghy (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of claims that he is notable yet still not a single independent source showing he is notable. Having a vast bibliography is not an indication of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: your original reason cited for non-notable ignored most of the reasons why Guppy is notable in his field and focussed on a minor aspect of his work. Now you are changing reasons. But your new reason has already been found wanting by other editors (see above). Guppy is quoted on one of the most popular US based Financial websites, Seeking Alpha, which is what prompted me to do the page, given he is an internationally know Australian financial writer:Seeking Alpha search Please read the "About" page of Seeking Alpha before dismissing it. Of all the other Australian financial (investment) authors, which are more notable by comparison and why? This would help me understand your objections. By the way, a simple google search of Daryl Guppy at site:smh.com.au shows notability by one of Australia's leading broadsheet papers. dinghy (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did anything change? I still claim he's not notable. 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Notability is established, however article needs significant work. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no support for deletion DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative metal artists

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

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_metal_(2nd_nomination)

List of bands of a genre that has yet to prove its legitimacy outside of semi-unreliable Allmusic. Most, if not all bands and artists that call themselves alt-metal are generally easily classified as another legit genre. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 17:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also point out the "also classified as" part, where most of these bands are described as another genre.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is a support piece for the main alternative metal wiki-article which, although nom'd for AfD, will likely be a speedy-keep re: WP:SNOW. List article is weak for sources... but sources should be easy enough to find. Wiki libs (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list compliments the Alternative metal page and is a useful resource relating to that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The alternative metal article is going to be kept, and has a new source from About.com added to it, thus shoring up the legitimacy of the genre's inclusion in wikipedia. So the list should stay as well. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. I hesitated to do this because I put in a "keep" !vote myself (although it was originally "neutral"), but Torchiest's source (as well as other editors' points) seems to prove notability; in addition, no one other than the nominator has said "delete". Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative metal

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

A genre that has yet to prove its legitimacy outside of semi-unreliable Allmusic. Most, if not all bands and artists that call themselves alt-metal are generally easily classified as another legit genre. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral. I'm not sure why you consider Allmusic to be semi-unreliable (first time I ever heard that term, lol), but the article does need serious work because it seems to focus more on individual bands than the apparent genre itself. I'll flag it for rescue. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Keep. Torchiest's source seals it for me. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems grained deeply into modern heavy metal press terminology (just the other day Blabbermouth referred to Helmet as "alternative metal legends"). Having been tossed around in the press for almost 20 years.. alt-metal has carved such a deep root it's almost turned into a parent genre of other heavy metal sub-genres... (like nu metal and avant-garde metal) The last time it was nom'd it was a speedy keep. Re: WP:SNOW... 2nd nom will likely have the same fate. Wiki libs (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, though. The last AfD was back in 2005, when rules weren't as strict. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Time will tell. Wikipedia is overrun with hundreds of fairy-tale music genres that sound like schoolboy pranks made up on the swings at recess time. This one seems to have a bit more stick to it than others do. Wiki libs (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Just doing a fast Google Magazine search for the term alt-metal results in over 7000 hits. Leaving out the odd 'Popular Mechanics' links there is still a major bomb of "alt-metal" or "alternative meta" being used thousands of times in Billboard, Spin, CMJ Music News, RS etc etc etc to described many different acts. Wiki libs (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No less obviously notable than other genres, and this nomination seems to hang on Allmusic being "semi-unreliable". Has this been discussed or edstablished anywhere? Until Allmusic is defined as an unreliable source, then it's a reliable source, and serves a purpose on this article. The article needs work though, like a lot of others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Bretonbanquet - The topic to me seems of note. I'd like to see some more reliable sources and some cleaning up of the article; maybe removing alot of the references to bands and relying on description instead? Pmedema (talk)
Keep - The term is very much applicable in modern music, and has been applied to bands by other sources outside the allmusic website. It just needs to be sourced better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, modern music from what I have heard is generally nu-metal and metalcore. I have yet to hear of one band that is purely this "alternative metal". I feel that this genre is just an excuse to escape another genre that's generally have gotten bad press. If I can have a list of bands that are of the alt-metal genre and nothing else, I'll drop my nomination.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My question has yet to be answered.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Top 10 Essential Alt-Metal Songs from About.com looks promising. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I understand your waryness of Allmusic's metal coverage ("WHO is black metal? Linkin Park? Riiiight"), in this case the term is very legitimate. It's been thrown around by at least a dozen publications. If you feel the article's presentation leaves something.to be desired, fix it, but wholesale deletion is the exactly wrong answer. --King Öomie 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could address the nominator's concerns by pointing to one of these purported "dozen publications" that documents what "alternative metal" is. "It's a legitimate term." means little coming from people with pseudonyms on a wiki. Sources are your best, and indeed sole, arguments. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [14] Over a thousand results! Notable news outlets refer to this genre quite often. Its a real thing. Dream Focus 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- You can find a good amount of references about the term and Allmusic is without a doubt a reliable source. In addition to the Allmusic entry, Ian Christe has an entire page in his book, Sound of the Beast, about "alternative metal." RG (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term gets a lot of usage. I'm frankly surprised it has been submitted for deletion, although I see that the sourcing in the article is extremely thin. It's not too difficult to find other reliable sources for this term, however. Here's About.com talking about it, for starters. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. I just added that source to the article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that source actually strengthened my opinion about alternative metal. Let me point out this quote "Alternative metal can sometimes also be called nu-metal, but as we’ll see, that is but one of the many offshoots of this ever-evolving genre." I also would like to point out the bands they call "alternative metal". Staind - Post-Grunge, not even metal. Living Colour - Funk Metal. Faith No More - Funk Metal. Tool - Progressive Metal, Korn - Nu-Metal, Papa Roach - Nu-Metal, System of a Down - Nu-Metal. Chevelle - Post-Grunge, not even metal. Disturbed - Nu-Metal. Slipknot - Nu-Metal. The article strengthens how alternative metal and nu-metal are practically the same genre.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't; in fact, the article doesn't mention nu-metal at all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the quote, ctrl f it. It's there, don't tell me it isn't.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Wikipedia article doesn't say it. What's your problem? Sounds like you're just mad that no one agrees with you. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all of you people are just bringing up a bunch of random sources that most are not even from a music-based website, and stating that as your argument to keep this article. It would be greatly appreciated that people who actually specialize in music articles would be the only ones allowed to vote, because so far, nobody has made their POV arguments on what alternative metal is without going on Google, stating a number of results. Big deal, I can type in "pirate metal" and get 1,150,000 results when that is clearly part of the folk metal genre, or even typing in some absurd thing like "bloody metal" yields 5,070,000 results. Using Google in this argument is invalid to me. One more thing is, I've must've asked this like a thousand times, What is the difference between nu-metal and alternative metal?. Essentially, it can't be proven I guess.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 03:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between nu-metal and alternative metal? It's clear that there is much overlap, and it seems that different music writers make different distinctions between them. For example: A Newsday article by Rafer Guzmán (April 18, 2004; p. C10) seems to suggest that alternative metal has more grunge influences: "...rock radio has returned to the grunge-influenced sound known as alternative metal. Among the more popular practitioners: Smile Empty Soul, Finger Eleven and Three Days Grace." In contrast, "In the late 1990s, the so-called nu-metal bands tried to permanently erase the memory of grunge with a mix of rap and rock. Limp Bizkit, in particular..." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Paul, I'm not exactly which side you're on. And Raptor, this isn't a vote. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for not being clear. I was mostly responding to F-22 Raptor's question ("What is the difference between nu-metal and alternative metal?"). But I was pointing to a source—the Newsday article, which discusses the evolution of heavy metal subgenres—where distinction is made between "nu-metal" and "alternative metal", so that's an argument to keep both articles. The fact that definitions or examples are hard to pin down is not, to me, a convincing argument to get rid of an article altogether. The article can cover, in a neutral way, what different music writers have said about the alternative metal genre. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there's just enough coverage around to keep this, and I appreciate the efforts of those who've sourced it. Claritas § 09:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Claritas. I think this is sourced enough and commonly known enough for inclusion. Note that most outcomes in the past three years for recently created genres have been for deletion (see any one of these, or those, or heaven knows whatever Christian genre has been out there.) However, this one has been around the block, so to speak. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTC Times

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

I cannot find sources to demonstrate that this web content is notable. The prod was removed with the comment "This article should not be deleted because it is an online newspaper". -- John of Reading (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the page should be deleted because it is an online newspaper.--Toontown59153 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) — Toontown59153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It could equally well be argued that an article on the shed in my back garden should not be deleted because it's an article on a shed in my back garden. You're essentially presenting a content-free argument. Please make a proper argument, based upon our policies and guidelines.
  I've reverted your improper removal of the AFD notice, by the way. Don't do that again. The notice stays up whilst the AFD discussion is open. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I did not realize I was not supposed to delete that. Toontown59153 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) So if I created a page about a specific brand of sofa that wasn't a best-seller, or about an artist who made one painting that was sold at a cra boot sale, would those pages be justified just because "it's about a sofa" or "it's about an artist." The problem is that just because it is an online newspaper doesn't mean it deserves to have its own Wikipedia article, it has to be notable, which means it needs to have featured in several reliable sources, which the TTC Times has not. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web content with no Gnews hits. The article was also created by a single-purpose account. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I still do not think the page should be deleted. It is a popular online newspaper read by about 5,000 people and it is very important. And it's very similar to a newspaper, just online and in a different form. Search it up on Bing or something. Toontown59153 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a content-free argument. What the subject is is of little relevance. This is an encyclopaedia of existing human knowledge, that we can demonstrate the world to have already acknowledged and reliably and properly recorded and published outside of Wikipedia, where subjects only warrant articles where the world has independently recorded in-depth knowledge beyond single factoids and directory entries. That is what is relevant. Again, please make an argument that is actually based upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability. —mono 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - absence of notability (I also suspect severe COI, but that's not relevant in an AfD). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I give it notability? 99.183.188.158 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can show us that the topic is notable by adding references to reliable sources that are independent of TTC Times. Has anyone else written about it? See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am on the fansite, I find no need or notability for this article. Allmightyduck (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability in coverage by reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass notability requirements and a search for sources produced literally nothing. Possibly notable in-world, but this isn't sufficient for an article. Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BBC Online. Shimeru 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Blast

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

Fails WP:N as many sites operate portals, but don't have Wikipedia pages for them. Fails WP:V due to the complete lack of sources. See no reason for this page. NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) 16:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This has no independent sources at all, and one website operated by the BBC does not inherit automatic notability from it. I have no problem with keeping this article if the lack of sourcing is remedied, although there are other problems with the article that need to be addressed. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom and Gavia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read about it today in the guardian, where they said the BBC Trust has agreed it should be shut down. BBC 6music saved. Verbal chat 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly, that information was already in the article, complete with full citation of supporting source. ☺ The question to address now is where you might have read about it in a newspaper before today, and what the newspaper said. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to BBC Online. Whether or not the BBC Trust has decided to shut it down is not important, it's how much media coverage it has got to date. The fact that practically all news stories about BBC's cutbacks mention the closure of BBC Blast means it warrants a mention somewhere. As to whether there's enough media coverage to warrant a stand-alone article I'm not sure, because GNews is flooding the hits with BBC News stories, which isn't really independent, but at the very least it can be mentioned in the content (or probably soon former content) section of the BBC Online article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to BBC Online. Worth mentioning, it did get some coverage outside the BBC if you dig hard enough (and use -site:bbc.co.uk as a search term), e.g. [15][16][17] Fences&Windows 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavia. No sources = no notability. Otherwise we may as well have an article about the janitor at BBC studios too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: We actually do have an article about a failed applicant for a job at the BBC: Guy Goma, but he is notable for other reasons! Rodhullandemu 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is awesome, just went and watched him on youtube. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Arsenal F.C. players. Useless as a redirect for searching purposes, but this preserves the history if someone wants to merge. Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arsenal F.C. captains

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

Content fork of List of Arsenal F.C. players where all information can be duely noted. Sandman888 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with things like List of Chicago Bears starting quarterbacks, I see no point, other than as an academic exercise, in having a separate article about particular members of a team, even those in a leadership position. In both sports, it takes eleven people to win. Sports fans get more articles on Wikipedia than enthusiasts of other subjects, because they're more assertive and competitive, and we should follow their example, but there's a limit to how much detail we need on any particular team. Mandsford 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary content fork, all info could and should be covered in the existing article. Giant Snowman 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could easily be covered at List of Arsenal F.C. players. – Pee Jay 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned above, the content of this article can easily be covered in other articles, and is not significant enough to merit an article of its own. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Arsenal F.C. or List of Arsenal F.C. players. There's a similar table in the Manchester United F.C. article that I think works well. The content is worth keeping, it just doesn't warrant it's own article. --Jimbo^[online] 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Very very unnecessary. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Grantom

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

Does not appear to show any particular notability that I can see. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. No significant reporting at Google News. Most of his directing work has been in very minor productions in non-notable theaters. IMDB [18] shows only two credits, both as an assistant director. (I know, IMDB is not a reliable source - but it usually errs on the side of OVER-reporting, so this feeble showing is significant IMO). --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned a dozen or more times as having directed something, but not much more to go on. Yakushima (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very much non-notable. No coverage. Spam almost. Created by SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fanaei

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

This man is apparently notable for only one event - being an assistant referee for the 1994 FIFA World Cup Final. Linesmen are not typically notable unless they go on to become proper referees. Even Fanaei's other claims to notability are not that special, as there were several other linesmen at the 1992 Summer Olympics and the 1995 King Fahd Cup, and others have been named AFC Linesman of the Year. – Pee Jay 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is very well-known in Iran, and currently serves as a frequent commentator on national TV. Here is a link to the awards (The link in the article don't work).Farhikht (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments don't really address his notability. – PeeJay 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before being an assistant referee, he has refereed matches in Iran Pro League. In 1994, he was an official in the final match of Azadegan League between Esteghlal FC and Saipa FC^[1]. He was also team manager of Iran under 23 soccer team but has been fired.Farhikht (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that is true, it should be mentioned in the article with appropriate references. – Pee Jay 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes he does fail ATHLETE. Because he isn't an athlete and that guideline has nothing about referees in it. Stephen Hawking fails ATHLETE but you wouldn't delete him. Big Dom 08:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would take issue with the relevance of the nominator's statement that "linesmen are not typically notable unless they go on to become proper referees", as nobody gets to be a linesman at the World Cup, let alone at the final, without being an experienced "proper referee" in a national league. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not true. The English linesmen at the 2010 World Cup, Darren Cann and Mike Mullarkey, are not full-time referees in one of the English national leagues; they are linesmen. That said, I don't know about the situation of the other linesmen at the World Cup, nor can I comment on previous World Cups. Nevertheless, I have seen no evidence that Mohammad Fanaei has ever been a proper referee, either in Iran or in a FIFA match. – Pee Jay 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Associated Press. According to AP Fanaei is a a leading soccer referee.Farhikht (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's widely known in Iran. He was also the Head of Iranian Referees Commitee in IRIFF before. Amirreza ^talk 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being widely known is not a guarantee of notability, and you have yet to provide any evidence that he has done anything that would confer notability. – Pee Jay 11:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass the GNG from what I can see after a thorough search for sources. Big Dom 08:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reason to delete this page. The man has obviously made certain accomplishments. This is information which someone in the world may be seeking -- which I believe is the general purpose of Wikipedia. Whether or not this person has reached a specific ranking or position to allow him a Wikipedia page should not be an issue. If he does later on go on to become a referee, then this page will be made again, and the research will have to be repeated. Is Wikipedia running out of hard drive space?? Ksaraf (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's purpose is to cover notable topics, not to provide information that "someone in the world may be seeking". We have specific notability criteria for sportspeople, and it seems that this fellow does not meet those criteria. Oh, and if the article does need to be recreated in the future, an admin can simply restore the page, so no-one would need to re-research the topic. – Pee Jay 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealin' (Bob Dylan bootleg)

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and the only sources provided are from the same non-credible site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a lot of coverage, but all from the one source. No indication that this is notable even within the somewhat narrow field of Dylan bootlegs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As a further thought, a merge/redirect to Bob Dylan bootleg recordings might be appropriate though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: fascinating stuff for the aficionados, I'm sure, but those people will end up at bobsboots.com without too much trouble, if they only google a little longer. If this page adds anything you can't get at that site, it's WP:NPOV violations. Yakushima (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The merge option could be discussed at the article's talk page, if necessary. Shimeru 00:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Larry Norman

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

This list seems unencyclopaedic in its specificity and better suited to something like larrynorman.wikia.com, but being unfamiliar with the artist I thought an AfD was preferable to a prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I oppose deletion of this article as it is consistent with other articles appearing on Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers. I modelled the article on List of songs written by Bob Dylan. As regards specificity, can you be more specific as to exactly what is too specific so that I can address that editorially? Also, can you explain "prod"?(smjwalsh (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Encyclopaedias are intended to give an overview of a subject, not an exhaustive listing of details. See WP:PROD for an explanation of prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the WP:PROD page. Although I've been editing on Wikipedia for almost 5 years, I am not familiar with most of the jargon. I agree with you about the nature of encyclopaedias, but there seems to be within WP list articles whereby an extensive and sometimes even exhaustive list of items is included. I referenced the list of Bob Dylan songs, as well as the category of lists of songs etc (see above). Another example: The List of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra article lists 957 songs (greater than the equivalent Norman article). As there is clear cut precedent for this type of article (I am familiar with the stuff exists article), this article is thus legitimate. Also, as discographies are permitted, then a listing of songs ought also to be included. Finally, on WP it says: "List articles are encyclopedia pages" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists).(smjwalsh (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Ideally, instead of attempting to duplicate this, one would have it as a link within the article about Larry Norman or within his discography. Mandsford 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Song Matrix referred to in your comment is referenced in the relevant articles. However, while the above source is the primary source, it is not the only one. There are songs omitted and also spoken performance pieces omitted. It is the starting point for creating a base. Other sources will be incorporated and integrated. Also, the way the original article is written does not allow information to be sorted.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I do understand concerns as regards duplication of the primary source, it seems clear that user smjwalsh has plans to make this wiki list more encompassing and complete than the source. I see no downside in allowing him to continue in his endeavour. More importantly perhaps, I cannot find any grounds for deletion based on the fact that the article is a list or "unencyclopedic". Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) indicates the acceptability of "A Discography page presents a listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features.". Given that Wikipedia rules appear to explicitly allow for such lists, and the fact that there are precedents in existence, I see no reason to insist upon deletion of this article. Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Whokilledduncan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep with Merge - Whether the article is entitled: Larry Norman discography or List of .... is irrelevant. A merge of this data into one or the other articles is appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The main Larry Norman article has already been tagged as too long, and the consensus of editors there is to create sub-articles. This article is one endeavour to do so. I have stopped working on the article since it was put forward for possible deletion as I did not want to work on something that might be deleted, and there are some ideas I have to reduce repetitive data eg album titles, as well as to perhaps create an article on "List of Larry Norman songs covered by other artists".smjwalsh (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Panahi

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

Non notable and unsourced.Farhikht (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unsourced, yes. Utterly lacking notability? Not so sure. Pathetically, the first RS-seeming google-search result [19] has text copied from this Wikipedia article itself (from what I can tell by the article's edit history and from the date of the event described at that link.) Pretty cheesy for Harvard, not to mention inauspicious for clearing the notability bar. A lot of the other hits are echoes, sites where might one ask to be listed as a favor (or pay to be listed).

But then there's this [20] on a Washington Post page, though it's admittedly a blog. There's a short piece on him in a Sri Lankan newspaper [21]. And one from the Tehran Times: [22]. Very low notability in English, and I don't see any article for him in French; certainly if it's kept, the blurb/resume tone should be remedied, and the unverifiable content removed. Art brings out the inclusionist in me, so I recuse myself. Yakushima (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Dosent give any proofs of notability. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sources that can satisfactorily meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 09:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO greatly. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ...But someone should incorporate those sources. Shimeru 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Alikhani

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

Non notable and unsourced. Page created by single page editor, possibly the subject himselfFarhikht (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One can search his name in Persian "یوسف علیخانی" in google to find out his impact on third generation of Persian novelists. As I know Ghabil Literary Magazine,[23], was an influential online journal for many years in Iran; his publishing house "Alamoot" is one of the leading publishing houses in Iran for avant-gard novels.--Newpoesia (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one source for sure, not sure as to it's reliability. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean ghabil.com?Farhikht (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be popular in Iran, but even searching on his name plus "novelist" yields only some book-reading circle report in English, at the top of the results; there's an Iranian microbiologist of the same name who's probably more notable. I tried to find the book where he's interviewed, at least to have an ISBN, but Google Book search turns up no such title. Yakushima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Absolutely no third party references, should have been BLP PRODed instead. Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator, whose user page says he speaks Persian quite well, apparently cannot be bothered to follow WP:BEFORE, and is simply mass-denominating Iran-related art and literature articles for deletion with the same cut-and-paste rationale. A google search in Persian [24] shows numerous sources from Iranian newspapers and news agencies like Jaam-e Jam [25], Aftab [26], etc. cab (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to thank you for your comment, and your attention to the Iran-related articles. I have no problem reading again the policies, but honestly this manner of judging could just disappoint newcomers. I hate to talk about myself, but I'm not a newcomer, I'm an experienced editor here on Wikipedia with more than 20000 edits, I'm a writer with more than 5 books and many articles, I know Iranian culture, and be sure I don't want to create an article about myself!Farhikht (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep I agree the Google hits in farsi have good quality, so maybe its a good article for Farsi wikipedia but the subject is not inernationally notable. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such distinction as "good article for Farsi wikipedia but the subject is not inernationally notable". Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable as evidence of notability; attempts to change WP:N to state otherwise have repeatedly failed, most recently in October 2009. cab (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current article reference is not in English, that's not a requirement, and the article appears (via automated translation) to cover the relevant information, appears to be reilable, secondary, independent, add the artab.ir link from CaliforniaAliBaba and the article passes GNG. Good enough. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. extransit (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Taghipour

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

Non notable and unsourced.Farhikht (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — BLPPROD Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be a hardly-notable mechanical engineer in California named Saeed Taghipoor who's more notable than this one. Yakushima (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playmore Toys

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

Non notable and unsourced. No google hits to back up the claims. noq (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom.Farhikht (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even breaking up the search on Google News and Google Books, from "Playmore toys" to Playmore and toys, very low notability at best. Yakushima (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. Unless the editor can provide sources, it seems to fail notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jen friel

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

Fails WP:BIO. I'm unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability. Maybe someone else will have better luck. APK whisper in my ear 08:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything for third party sources, iffy wording, almost reads like an ad. Delete for sure. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what about www.fiestamovement.com/la ?!?! She was part of the LARGEST social media campaign in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJ10 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do you have an independent reliable source for that? Secondly, notability is not inherited. Someone who cleans the floors at Microsoft's headquarters is part of a very notable business, but is not notable. Being "part of" a campaign does not confer notability, even if the campaign is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of independent reliable sources anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reliable sources can be found. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; same reasoning; lack of coverage in WP:RS Chzz ► 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the real question is is Jen for real?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhappyguyx (talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 09:38, 5 July 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Hanna (2011 film)" ‎ (Mass removal of pages added by LegoJoker68) non admin closure by ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna (2011 film)

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

Once again, fails WP:NOTFILM, as the principle photography has not yet begun. Fbifriday (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A message to all Wikpedia users who wish to delete this article:

I have read and researched and found no evidence supporting the claim that particular content in this article is from the web site: "http://saoirseronanfan.com/?cat=29".

Wikipedia user 'CorenSearchBot' has made a mistke when this article was accused of copyright infringement.

Please DO NOT delete this article, but if you still think that it contains copyrighted content,please consult me as soon as possible.

Regards,

LegoJoker68

08:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegoJoker68 (talk • contribs)

I have removed the copied plot summary. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Star Cops#Principal characters. I'll buy it as a possible search term. Shimeru 00:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Ray Evans

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

Delete This is a minor actor with no notability. The article gives no sources except IMDb. Most of his television work consisted of individual appearances in single episodes of series. Extensive searching has failed to produce a single example of a reliable independent source giving significant coverage. Mostly there are entries in listing sites, passing mentions in articles about other people, etc. There is even at least one source which indicates a lack of notability: http://www.zetaminor.com/dvd/dvdreviews/star_cops.htm says "Apart from a brief appearance in Supergirl, and guest spots in The New Statesman, Casualty and Stay Lucky, Evans film and TV career didn’t amount to much". That is the longest of three sentences mentioning Evans in that page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Cops#Principal characters, where this actor is already mentioned and sourcable. The stubby article size aside, his career was starting to nudge WP:ENT before his death,[27] and he does have some coverage for his earlier stage work.[28] I think his name is a suitable search term, and as a redirect will send readers to where he has whatever notability he might. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor actor. No substantial coverage. Clearly fails WP:ENT. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, closed early with no remaining deletes. non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incest between twins

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

Random assortion of trivia, and the article also covers such a specific topic as to be non-notable excluding the all-encompassing "popular culture" section. Anything worth keeping can be moved into Incest and then the article deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable anthropological concept. I'll clean this up and source it properly. Claritas § 09:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - cleaned-up, flagging for rescue. Claritas § 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this might have enough anthropological significance to be notable in its own right despite the absence of an article for "sibling incest"; I'll have more time to look over the article and its sources later and will consider withdrawing the nom then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDespite any "EEW, I don't like it!" arguments, it seems to have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thereby satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To which "EEW, I don't like it!" arguments are you referring? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laws requiring twins to marry, historical figures in mythology, etc. That makes it quite notable. For thousands of years the stories have endured, and been at least at one time, a key factor in the shaping of the culture of a society. I don't know if any of the more modern depictions in entertainment fiction belong in the article or not. Those have all been deleted. [29] Dream Focus 08:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per anthropological / cultural significance demonstrated after the article's cleanup. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Street Studios

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Still no sources despite being tagged for over two years. Searching failed to produce reliable independent sources. The article is distinctly promotional in tone (eg "Brent Street's facilities are first class and the studios are a magnet..." etc). JamesBWatson (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage for this. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - independently of this discussion. Claritas § 10:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contagion (2011 film)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM as production has not yet begun. PROD was disputed. Fbifriday (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ‎by HJ Mitchell (Mass removal of pages added by LegoJoker68). Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes 2 (film)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM as production has not yet begun, already addressed at Sherlock_Holmes_(2009_film) under sequel. PROD was disputed. Fbifriday (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Friesen

AfDs for this article:

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

Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, and no relevant collegiate history. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:FOOTY/N JonBroxton (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This deletion is actually a separate deletion discussion; the original deletion was for a different individual who shared the same name. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article asserts it's own non-notability. USL Premier is below level required to infer player notability as is Belgian Promotion D. No coverage and nothing to suggest player has done anything notable. All he has done is play amateur football.--ClubOranje^T 11:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- Luxic (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: amateur footballer, no credible assertion of notability per ATHLETE and GNG. Big Dom 08:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. Vice

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO andWP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Of the "references" in the article, the substantial majority do not even mention "H. Vice", and the few that do make only passing mention. In addition to this many of them are not reliable, not independent of the subject, or both. No evidence of notability found elsewhere, either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per JamesBWatson's reliability investigation. 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Misleading, spammy article designed to hide lack of notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ‎by HJ Mitchell (Mass removal of pages added by LegoJoker68). Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 5 (2011 film)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, as principal has not yet started. Article starter removed PROD and replaced with hangon, so I am making a formal AfD to prevent PROD tag from being removed and it being un-noticed Fbifriday (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pre-production film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is part of a notable franchise, and reasonably reliable references are available. The article is not in great shape yet, but is clear about it being a future film and will likely improve and flesh out as more details come available. If the film ends up not getting made by 2011-ish, agree it could be deleted and maybe just be an extra note on Final_Destination_(film_series).Cander0000 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Irregardless of the franchise's notability, the simple fact of the matter is that the guideline states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The main issue with this article is that it is already covered, in somewhat more detail, and with reliable sources, at the franchise's article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Singularity

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

A neologism with 1,740 hits on Google. Many of the hits are about Timecube. mboverload @ 04:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong Delete This is original research not encylopedic material. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference cited does not use the term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN and nom.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Sex & Religion

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

Non-notable documentary by Sebastian Siegel (also up for AfD, his notability doesn't solidify this one in the slightest). No reliable sources. Both articles, and all links to them, created by the same SPA. SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation once the film is released and only if it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. As it is not due out until next year, and lacks coverage, this article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the notes. It is a groundbreaking film, having the original interviews from many icons never before interviewed on the subject matter - many of which are the only personal interviews of them at all, such as James Whitmore's and John Daly's. It is expected to premier at the Sundance festival. We can Merge it to remain the the Sebastian Siegel article, though a trailer will be released soon, also with highly original interview footage. We greatly appreciate the notations. MediaMNG(talk) 23:45, 8 July 2010 — MediaMNG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete No third party verification it meets WP:NFF. Active Banana (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After disregarding the sockpuppets, the consensus is fairly clear. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2010 (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}}.

Sebastian Siegel

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

Minor roles, directed a documentary, Love, Sex & Religion, also being added for AfD. Minor coverage with lots of IMDb and similar "sources". Both articles, and all links to them, created by the same SPA. SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references have been updated, supplemented and criteria met per section 1 on wikipedia's Notability page on Entertainers. (MediaMNG) 10:09 10 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The article needs a major sandblasting. The subject does have some coverage... but more for being a fitness guru than as a filmmaker or actor. Perhaps we can give it back to its author for a re-write and change of focus? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of both articles (and all of the links to them) is a single purpose account (MediaMNG) who has yet to repond to anything on a talk page (including the deletion notices, deletion of several images and a COI tag. If yo can get a response, I'd have no objection to userfying it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. FieldMarine (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the reference directions. I am the current account holder for (MediaMNG) and we have been responding by updating many of the link/footnotes to independent 3rd parties. Many of the links to the primary site actually demonstrate and/or link to independent 3rd party material, though since newer direct ones have been added we can delete some of these. Imdb is a commonly used independent 3rd party, and widely accepted and discretionary reference. There are additionally links to reviews which are often changing or less permanent which is why we've referenced imdb on several accounts (many of the references are to different pages on imdb though as well).

In the Notability page, under the Entertainers section, Sebastian Siegel has exceeded the defined terms on many accounts as being the following: "Actors, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Having had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, or other productions." Lost, The Family that Preys, Reign of Fire, Family Guy, CSI Miami are some of the most successful tv/film productions, and particularly on Lost, The Family that Preys, and in the independent films, Atheist, In my Life, Indie is Great, his characters have been integral to driving the plots of these films or episodes. He is represented by one of the highest level management firms, Evolution, which also represent: Charlie Sheen, Lee Daniels, Kevin Dillon, Kelly LeBrock, Rick Fox (Notable entertainers, directors, actors).

As a filmmaker, his film, "Love, Sex & Religion" is confirmed on imdb and in photographs to have a growing "cast" list of vastly popular (and "Notable" by wikipedia standards) actors, personalities, scholars and public figures such as Ken Wilber, Taylor Dayne and James Whitmore.

As a model he has appeared on the covers of a greater variety of health/bodybuilding/fitness magazines (footnoted to 3rd party footage and documents) than almost anyone else (we multiply referenced to those covers), transcending that unique category with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Joe Weider - with an additional weight of notability being that he is an all natural athlete, and has shot significant campaigns with the most prolific artists in the adjacent industry of fashion.

As a personality he has played the lead roles in some of the most groundbreaking, successful, and widely seen comedic campaigns, from Green Tea Partay (footnoted) to Geico, all in collaboration with other Notable entertainers.

We will place the template {{merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal|date=January 2025}} at the top of the page for Love, Sex & Relgion and delete those aspects within the Sebastian Siegel page once it's no longer in discussion for deletion. We greatly appreciate the insight and are working to update per the notes. Thank you (MediaMNG) 14:23, 7 July 2010 — MediaMNG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Able to locate enough secondary sources to verify notable work in film and television. (ElPuppy)

21:45, 8 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpuppy (talk • contribs) — ElPuppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete only minor roles, promo article, no substantial coverage in reliable sources - most video clip links constitute contributory copyright infringement per WP:ELNEVER (and Lost wikia is not a reliable source and a personal profile on Huffington Post is neither, etc.) Hekerui (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ this article has now been extensively referenced. Of 39 total references now, only 7 references (#12,14, 21,22,25,28,37) are to the primary site about the individual. 12 is film footage not infringing copyright rules under SAG standard provisions (though it is to the site about the individual), 14 is embedded video to a talk show, 21 is a series of links to other references beyond Huffington Post, 22 could be deleted (though it does support Government and health references in the article), 25 links to a page that shows the individual on these major publications, 28 is the same so one of these should be deleted, 37 supports the film in reference with embedded video linked to a neutral party (the ONLY personal interview i.e., not on politics or acting, ever recorded by the late James Whitmore). (MediaMNG) 17:08, 9 July 2010 — MediaMNG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You've already !voted. You may continue to "comment", but you get one !vote. You are free to change your vote, but please do not duplicate it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of those sources are not reliable: youtube, IMDb, allmoviephoto, etc. don't make the grade. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ this article. Sebastian is well known throughout the fitness community as he has been on multiple magazine covers and has been featured on Bodybuilding.com. His work on Lost and The Family That Preys were significant and moved the story forward. Nothing on this page is inaccurate. If these sources are not acceptable, what would be? One could easily find these shows and films online or at a rental store and see for themselves if Sebastian's roles were noteworthy. I have personally gone through the sources in question and they are they are all on point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter midnight2000 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Peter midnight2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (User:Peter midnight2000 has been blocked as a sock of MediaMNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep this article. While the article is well referenced anyone doubting the validity of the statements can see abundant additional supporting content with the most redumentary search including video clips from highly regulated network television. What could possibly be the motivation for questioning the legitimacy of this page? from the comments above is it possible that a single person can remove valid information and for what purpose? I think it would be helpful for SummerPhD to explain his/her rational here? how does (s)he know Mr. Seigel? what specifically are the factual objections? clearly this subject matter seems completely outside of the subject matter SummerPhD typicaly focuses on? why has summerPhD ignored the creator of the article's efforts to address comments in favor of such a draconian campaign to delete the page? Isn't the purporse of Wiki to share information rather than subtrefuse it? If these issues can not be addressed how can anyone vote to remove this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.198.108 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — 75.42.198.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - The subject of the article is not notable unless and until he is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia reports on notable subjects by summarizing information from independent reliable sources (not IMDb, youtube, flickr, other wikis, etc.). If you feel that my edits or editing are questionable in any way, this is not the forum for that discussion, there are plenty of questionable edits in this discussion. Those edits/editor(s) should be handled through our dispute resolution procedures. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ this article. Sebastian has substantial industry credits and is well known in the Hollywood community. He portrayed a key role in Tyler Perry's The Family That Preys and appeared in two episodes of the Emmy Award-winning series Lost, not to mention countless fitness magazine covers. To delete this entry would be arbitrary and capricious. Thomdave (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)thomdave — thomdave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Thomdave has been blocked as a sock of MediaMNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - This page positively REEKS of socks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and they're not at all subtle. I've wacked a few and semi'ed the page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hadn't heard of him before this but enjoyed the opportunity. There seems good weight to support keeping it, and checking a few of the links proves there is a solid foundation here. JonnyQ123 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The "good weight" is from sock puppets of the COI account (your editing history is interesting). The links to IMDb, other wiki projects, youtube, flickr, etc. are worthless as far as notability goes. What substantial coverage in independent reliable sources have you found? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On first impression, nicely made article (honed over three years), but refs are spammy and unreliable. Has done a fair bit of minor work but nothing that brings substantial coverage. SPA does not fill me with confidence. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Segedy

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

Non-notable writer. No third party sources demonstrating notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other criteria. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing to show notoriety. Polymathic Darko (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean notability, yes? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references used are reputable journals: NTCE publication, Virginia English Bulletin; Author was also presented a writing Award by Gwendolyn Brooks at the annual Virginia Bulletin conference in 1984.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.54.75 (talk • contribs)
Delete. There is no evidence at all this person meeds WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. A few articles published in some very minor journals does not come close to showing that the subject is "regarded as an important figure". Given its nature, having a book printed by PublishAmerica is no evidence at all of notability.No independent reliable source supports any of the article. The sole substantive author of the article (Msegedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) confirms that he is the subject of the article ("The article about me") which would support the hypothesis that the article is solely promotional in nature. The article has existed for 8 months with no worthwhile improvements in referencing. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wildly non-notable; sole novel is pay-to-publish, the rest of his publication record does nothing to make up for it. Hairhorn (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS IS NOT A PAY FOR PUBLICATION - PUBLISH AMERICA WAS NOT PAID TO PUBLISH HAMPTON ROAD. Apart form the journals mentioned above, the kafka.com site is a reputable site and the author has an article published here as well. DO you have to be famous to have a wiki published about you? If so, delete the article. If you have reputable references to your work and have published a novel (not pay to publish - which PublishAmerica is not - though it is a lot of other terrible things), then why is this author not entitled to have an article about him in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.54.75 (talk • contribs)
  - Bluntly, yes, you have to be famous to have an article about Wikipedia. No, you're certainly not "entitled" to an article about yourself in Wikipedia. We're not claiming the sources supplied are not "reputable", we're claiming they don't show notability, to the standards listed in WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. And yes, if there's no significantly better evidence, we're going to delete the article. Arguing with us will help not a jot; only providing real solid evidence of notability will help. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the author is referenced by scholars, does that not count as notability (http://www.johngardner.org/checklist/index.html; http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Michael_Segedy; His article on Gardner's Grendel was also referenced by Katherine Paterson: http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/bibs/paterson.html. Doesn't this meet notability? Again, if being famous is the principal criterion and the deciding factor, then DELETE this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.8.190 (talk • contribs)
      - I wouldn't necessarily use the word "famous" to describe the base criteria for an article. To draw from a related field, I would say that most of the people listed in Category:Academics aren't "famous". But they are (or should be) notable. This article has sat for months with no effort put into showing that the subject is notable. Even now, as it is reviewed as to whether it's kept or not, nobody has been doing that which can save the article: Add sources that support notability! Dismas|^(talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article was started by the subject himself with nothing more than a link to his book on Amazon. He's done the majority of the editing. We can't consider this unbiassed writing - and with such an acute lack of references and the thinnest of claims for notability, we have to delete it. If this person turns out to become notable, someone else will create an article. If not, it's not great loss to the encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO by quite a margin. No substantial coverage. Self-editing is not the sign of a notable person. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Necessary (Sean P album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's hearsay about this album and nothing else. In addition, the place that used to link to info about the album on Amazon is now dead (I can't post that link because of the spam filter). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. More specifically, the title, track listing and release date must all be verified before an album gets its own article. Cliff smith ^talk 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Mama's Family per nominator's request and no "keep" !votes. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food Circus

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

This doesn't appear notable, I google searched for it and the stuff that came up ahd nothing to do with this topic. Don't think fictional grocery stores are necessarily notable anyway Sadads (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Mama's Family. Actually, I don't know if it's even worth that, but it definitely doesn't pass WP:FICT on its own. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication this store is notable. There isn't even enough to merge into Mama's Family. No reason oto redirect either as Mama's Family mentions the store a total of one time. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was mentioned a few times, but it still isn't independently notable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the redirect. Sadads (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locust Music

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance via associated bands. Codf1977 (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test Tube Records

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through associated bands. Codf1977 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photl.com

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

Notability doubtful, no reliable source stated or can be found on Google. Schuhpuppe (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass notability guidelines. Lacking reliable secondary coverage. Shell ^babelfish 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable site created by SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are only two delete !votes, but it's really just an advert and the low number of Ghits doesn't shows any significant coverage. —fetch ·comms 03:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medienmacher heute

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

This article is a book. The intro (copied from http://www.fritzkohle.de/interviewtext/macher.html) doesn't even state that. This failed WP:COPYVIO CSD because of OTRS. Ok, well I still don't see why the topic is notable, and the WP:COI-written article doesn't make any claims of notability. The links listed are just lists. No third-party coverage with reliable sources explaining why this is a particularly notable book. I believe this is mild WP:ADVERT to gain attention. — Timneu22 · talk 10:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First part of this article may be a copyvio from here. Not tagging G12 yet because there is a small chance that this site may have copied the text from the WP article. There are quite a few mirrors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: On what grounds did WP:OTRS say this was "not" WP:Copyvio? --ANowlin: talk 23:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and per WP:NB. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recloose

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through founding person and bands that may or may not be signed (No Ref's). Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bedazzled Records

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP, what coverage there is is limited to reports of band either signing or releasing records through this company (WP:INHERITED) but nothing about the company it's self. Codf1977 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Radio Vol.1

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Shadow 01.1

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

Non-notable mixtape, any meaningful content can addressed in the GTA III article (and probably is.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfaith ministry

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

Non-notable ministry lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A cannabis sacrament medicinal marijuana caregiving church, open to all religions, mang! Delete please.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. A ton of references are provided, but none are to "independent reliable sources." --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpits

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

Non-notable product. Existence is not notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia does not offer free advertising space. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Product has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Featured in a local Fresno newspaper article, reviewed in the UK Daily Mail, and company's tribulations with the better business bureau reported on along with a bunch of minor reviews such as [30], [31], [32]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: although my first reaction was never ever, the given refs. indicate some kind of notability. Dewritech 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Product review links don't make it notable. Maybe if in a few years this product gains widespread use, article can be recreated. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why wouldn't product reviews make it notable? Book reviews are used to establish notability of books. Product reviews are evidence that the product is being noted. The reviews are both independent and reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just about every product gets reviewed somewhere. But that doesn't mean the product will become popular or noteworthy. It could just fade away into obscurity after the review. So product reviews don't make it notable but a proven track record will. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The articles are geographically diverse, and they span from 2008 to 2010. How will you judge a "proven track record"? -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is some coverage but it's a borderline situation. Favour deletion as the coverage isn't quite substantial enough. (Even if it's deleted it may become notable enough in the future.) Christopher Connor (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly no consensus to delete; merge is an editorial option that can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs For Israel

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

Delete or Merge to Nonie Darwish. Non notable article about something that is run from a blog that gets rarely updated: http://arabsforisrael.blogspot.com/ A lot of this article is about Nonie Darwish herself and not her organization. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Who said it's "run from a blog" or that the blog is even a semi-important part of the organization?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is the organizations main website? Isn't it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise that an organization would not consider its blog as its main website. The organization appears to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, so if your basis for deletion/merge is that the blog is not updated frequently, perhaps we should clarify whether the blog is even an integral part of the organization, let alone its main website.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on the web and it looks like the blog is the organizations only website, do you know any other website? And this organization is not covered in reliable sources, a Google search shows its mostly mentioned in blogs, forums, other shady websites etc. The only reliable source I could find was from the telegraph.co.uk[33] but that article was about Nonie Darwish herself and not the organization "Arabs For Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may be right, especially about those "shady websites." :) I would support a merge into Nonie Darwish if so supported by a consensus.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a notable organization, there are a significant number of reliable sources, four of which are cited in the article. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is no evidence that this actually is an organisation; all I can see is that it exists as a website/blog. Certainly there is nothing to indicate that this is notable enough to have its own article. Anything not already included in the Nonie Darwish article can be added there. RolandR (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Muslim Zionism. Shii (tock) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note it makes no sense to merge into Muslim Zionism since it is a group of Arabs, not Muslims. Marokwitz (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am surprized with the arguments of the nominator: there are sufficient reliable sources to identify notability of the association. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree that merge makes no sense. There do appear to be sufficient third party sources to support notability. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1983 United Kingdom general election result in Essex

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

Previously PRODded article - by myself - saying that it was "a completely unnecessary list of the 1983 election results in Essex. All of the information is already available at both List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1983 and the various constituencies' articles." It was deprodded without improvement or reasoning, so it's brought here. (It should be noted that I had forgotten about this and only came across it when looking for something else.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whilst I feel going down to one county for an individual election is a bit much, I can see a use for grouping electoral information by county. Could we work this information (and other elections) into List of Parliamentary constituencies in Essex? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- there appear to be equivalent articles for 1979 and 1983, but I have never heard of anything similar for other counties. It might be useful to have a single article on all election results in Essex; certainly including County Council ones; possibly also district ones, assuming that the district electoral arrangements for all districts are sufficiently similar to make this possible. I assume we are dealing with the present county, not all the places whose address is "Essex", which probably includes places now in Greater London. However, this ought not to remain the only county with an article of this kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator notes, this list of the winners of the 17 different seats in Essex is already part of the list of the winners of the general election. As with others, I see no reason to keep this. In addition, I see plenty of reasons to delete, the main one being the prospect of zillions of sub-articles called "19___ election for the seats that were located in ____" Mandsford 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isadora Records

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through signed artists. Also fails WP:V Codf1977 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable, an article does not need to meet a quantifiable checklist of specific accomplishments; it need only be referenced to one or more reliable sources, which this is. Furthermore, Hawksley Workman, Serena Ryder and their album articles do all require somewhere to link to in the "label" field of their infoboxes. And for that matter, how on earth does the article fail WP:V in any way, shape or form? Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree both the WP:GNG and WP:CORP lay down that a subject of an article should have received significant coverage. as it says in WP:CORP ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." The info boxes can list the label without an wp article. Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As currently written, the article fails WP:V because it has one reference that only mentions Isadora Records once, in passing (ie, the article is not about the label, it's about the musician). The article might survive by virtue of the label's connection to Serena Ryder, although IMO WP:NOTINHERITED ought to apply. PK T(alk) 12:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nontrivial coverage of the record label in such publications as Billboard, Maclean's, and the Winnipeg Free Press (now added). I too am perplexed by the assertions that this article "fails WP:V". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to read most of the refs as they do not have links however :

"Prolific songwriter laments the death of the record store" Winnipeg Free Press looks like it is more about Hawksley Workman than Isadora judging by the title.

"Hawksley's moxie" - Maclean'sagain judging by the title is more about Hawksley Workman; and

"Serena Ryder: Unlikely Emergency: Isadora Records" - The Boston Globe looks like an artical about Unlikely Emergency.

That leaves the Billboard refs :

"Canadian singer/songwriter Hawksley Workman lets 'The Wolves' out on his own Isadora label" is likely about the release of the "The Wolves" and the fact that he has started a new record company to do so.

"Meat-and-Greet" - is unclear what this could be about.

So given that I can't see how this is record company meets WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant coverage of the record label in each of the Billboard articles, in the Free Press article, and in the Maclean's article, although it's not apparent just from reading their titles. That some of them are primarily about Workman himself is not a problem for WP:N. And WP:CORP says, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability", but this is not trivial or incidental coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect may be created at editoral discretion. Courcelles (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Antarctica

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

From the out-of-universe perspective, this "group" is just one of the jokes made by Keith Giffen during his run with the Justice League. It lasted for a single issue (and it wasn't even their own issue, but a common Annual of the Justice League comic book). It's right that the characters were a recurring "villain" team during Giffen's run, but as the Injustice League. That's the way they were always referenced. It can't be compared with Justice League Europe, a spin-of of the League published by the same time: JLE had its own title, its own story arcs, its own members with leaving and joining people along the publishing history, characters created in this comic book title, etc. In short, a spin-of notable enough to deserve an article of its own, and all those reasons are missing in "Justice League Antarctica". MBelgrano (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this article is deleted, File:JusticeLeagueAmericaAnnual1990.jpg would have to be deleted as well, as a non-free image which is only used here MBelgrano (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article consists of nothing but in-universe plot summary, and places undue weight on an extremely minor element of this comic book series. Reyk _YO! 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete and redirect. It's a good search term, with no dab, but there probably isn't much on them if they were only in one issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. What's a "dab"? MBelgrano (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Dab" is short for "disambiguation"; how Wikipedia deals with two different subjects that have the same name. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.iranseda.ir/FullItem/?g=488629

[1] ttp://www.iranseda.ir/FullItem/?g=488629

[1]