Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 29

< 28 July	30 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, with several keeps and 1 delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydiohead

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

Non-notable mashup —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - Easily the most notable mash-up since the Grey Album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.60.2 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC) (Note: this comment is this user's first and only post on Wikipedia.}[reply]

Jaydiohead should definitely NOT be deleted. I can't figure out how to comment on this the official Wikipedia way, so my apologies for that...but I have referred dozens of people to this page in the past year. DON'T DELETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.242.15 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (Note: this comment is this user's first and only post on Wikipedia.}[reply]

Dude, what? Keep the hell out of this. DON'T DELETE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.83.161 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (Note: this comment is this user's first and only post on Wikipedia.}[reply]

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but in serious need of rewrite. Personally, I love Radiohead, like Jay, and dislike mashups (and am not particularly impressed with this one), but it seems to have received a fair amount of coverage, likely because this guy mashed two prolific musicians.. which people give attention to. Anyway, if the consensus turns to keep, I would be willing to rewrite it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I must disclose that I have no idea what a "mashup" is, but Jaydiohead has received some serious (non-trivial) coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As such, I believe it meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. The cleanup offered by Theornamentalist would be very welcome though! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to begin working on it, if it decided to delete, someone please advise me! - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Major rewrite finished. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn There are still some sketchy sources here, but this is definitely not delete-worthy as it is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawks

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

Unreferenced article sent to PROD a second time, hence booted to AfD for a discussion, but I see nothing worth keeping here. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless Mercury Filmworks has made something out of it in the meantime, I would say this is as deletable as it must have been in 2006. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone else. — Timneu22 · talk 00:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establiosh notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 30 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. The consensus is that as an individual, Grubb is not notable enough (as Wikipedia defines notability) to warrant an article. There is also uncertainty about the notability of the ABO - but that's another issue, as the organisation does not have an article at the moment -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Grubb (orthodontist)

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

WP:N ~~and WP:V~~ concerns. The ABO claim is almost verifiable (a partial capture of the director/staff page of the ABO exists at the Internet Archive), but lacking the graphics that say "president" it's almost iffy for verifiability, and if that's really the only source, can notability be that high? Checked out the award (could find a very few references to the award in general, nothing really secondary), it's possible it's prestigous but I'd expect something more than what I saw if it was. Couldn't find evidence of notability via WP:SCHOLAR as well. But maybe I'm missing something, suggestions for additional sources welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Perhaps those more familiar with the qualifications for academics can weigh in. This is a university newsletter so it is not helpful from a notability standpoint. However, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the biographical information, and in particular, it confirms that he is a fellow of the International College of Dentists which is handed out only by inviation per these citeria. He also is published, for example this article. I honestly don;t know enough to interpret Google scholar search results. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Whpq (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much depends on the notability of ABO. If this is a major organization, then being president of it would qualify under WP:PROF. I have done some work on the article and I have removed the info on publications (15 really is not much) and scientific talks (nothing special either). Publishing and talking is what researchers do... I do not currently have time to look at citations and such or to search for sources for the awards/fellowships (or whether those are notable themselves). --Crusio (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "past directors" reference added (nice find, I'd missed that) addresses the specific issue of the verifiability of his position at the ABO, so I've struck-through the relevant portions of my nomination. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:N. Appears to be a respected, accomplished professional. Has authored some academic papers. But none of these accomplishments individually or together are remarkable enough to pass WP:N or WP:PROF. The ABO is not a medical licensing body, but rather a voluntary professional association. Their website states "A dentist who graduates from a specialty program becomes an orthodontic specialist who is eligible to become board certified through the voluntary examination process of The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO). Involvement in the certification process is a demonstration of the orthodontist's pursuit of continued proficiency and excellence." [1]. i.e. membership/certification is voluntary, and holds no pedagogical weight; likely an organisation as much for professional networking as orthodontic excellence. Not anything wrong with that, just doesn't speak to notability. --Whoosit (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an orthodontist in private practice. He has been active with the certification board, including serving as its president, and he is a co-author of several journal articles [2], but I just don't see notability here. Possibly confusing issue: there may be two orthodontists named John E. Grubb, one in Chicago and one in Chula Vista, California; there's nothing to indicate which one this article is about, or whether they are the same person. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the American Board of Orthodontics had its own article, I would recommend a merge, but it doesn't. I'm not sure of that Board is notable in its own right, but there are no significant reliable secondary sources to indicate that its past president has any notability. As such, he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would seem the American Board of Orthodontics itself should be the subject of an article? Bwrs (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Akser

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

Non-notable, no sources found (except IMDB), text direct lift from IMDB Plad2 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significaant coverage about him. It's unclear whether the wiki article was lifted from IMBD or vice versa as both feature user submitted content and this article dates to 2005. Note that the IMDB entry shows only miscellaneous work and no significant projects under his direction. This seems to corroborate the article which does not make any strong assertions of notable work. Nor does the academic work qualify him through WP:SCHOLAR. Google news results has his name appearing in judging panels at movie festivals [3], but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 30 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) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QED National

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

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CORP and meets or exceeds WP:COI. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ukexpat, most if not all of the GNews hits were press releases. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 06:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another IT spammer: certified Women-Owned Business Enterprise which provides IT services.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:CORP. Of the 21 links to so called sources, most of them are to Wikipedia pages, others are to directories or other trade organisations; none are actually about QED National in a way that asserts its notability. The reference section is a perfect example of scraping the barrel.--Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawn by nominator. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park No-ja

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

Does not appear to be notable in English. If, as claimed, this person is notable in Korea or Norway, the relevant language versions of the Wikipedia can handle this best. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Does not appear to be notable in English" is probably the most blatant case of systemic bias I've seen in this project. If a topic notable in Korea and Norway, English Wikipedia shouldn't cover it? Someone notable in countries where the primary language is not English is every reason for English language Wikipedia to cover them. Best selling author and has received significant coverage by reliable sources such as The Dong-a Ilbo. [4][5][6] And these are only in English. In Korean, there's much more.[7] [8]. Probably even more in Norwegian ((bokmål)‬. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing an English language source. Without any source of this kind, it seems too difficult for us to protect ourselves against hoaxes and other improper BLPs. The Wikipedia is divided into separate languages and so it seems sensible for topics which are exclusively covered in one language to be confined to the appropriate sections. Systematic translation into other languages would only be appropriate once an article had reached a reasonable and verified level of quality in the primary language. Anyway, as we have an acceptable English source now, I shall withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 30 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. Consensus is that Kameelion does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kameelion

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

Not notable, no assertion of notability. Musician with no published work or commercial recordings Velela ^{Velela Talk} 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does have published work. It should be kept. CrackersTeam 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.62.78 (talk) [reply]

Delete. Per WP:Notability (music) a musician must have published at least two albums or must have had a single in any national charts. Online releases don't count as notable. De728631 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is up and coming and has national releases on iTunes and in national download charts. Should be keptEnjaBenja (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.42.190 (talk) [reply]

Delete - Verifiability is not satisfied, which is more serious than just not meeting notability. What is it with the references which seem to be misguided at best, and fake at worst. For example, "Kameelion fits in the industry" says label leads to [9] which is lyricsmania lyrics from a song by "Ben Alekzsander Williams" which is presumably Kameelion, but is a complete misrepresentation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be the second time through AFD for this subject. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alekzsander Williams for an earlier article under his full birth name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq's analysis of the "references." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - Seems to have been speedy deleted 6 times previously as Ben Williams (Singer). -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alekzsander Williams, for which I have tagged the article {{db-repost}}, and move to close per WP:SNOW. Note that there is a similar discussion at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Kameelion. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this article is very different to the deleted one with different refs, so we will have to let this discussion work it out with a new consensus. If this had been labelled with A7 I would have deleted it though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE . this guy is just a complete joke. what he produces cannot even be considered to be music. it is closer to a crime against humanity. if you think i'm exxagerating check out his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.124.215 (talk)

Keep Seems to be developing nicely now with sources and additional information, looking notable 92.2.124.179 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable. Tommy! [message] 01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable and up coming 92.11.19.24 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per nom and WP:MUSIC & since when are ips allowed to vote? Avono♂ (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - IP editors are allowed to contribute to the discussion. See WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. -- Whpq (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment thanks for the reply Avono♂ (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TOP Torrent tracker

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

Contested prod. Article consists of external links to bit torrent sites only with editor comments on content of site. It appears to be a list of personal choices with no cites. Falls foul of WP:OR NtheP (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and falls afoul of being a directory and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 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) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six Sigma Tennis

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

At first glance this has sources, but they are: 1) Quality Digest, written by the same guy that came up with the Six Sigma Tennis concept, 2 and 3) Press releases via Prnewswire and 4), a blog. I've searched for more sources, and all I've come up with is more press releases and blogs. As it is it fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Painfully promotional prose, a catalog of dubious methodologies: ....has won international acclaim as a Solutions Expert, bringing together best practices from his hands-on business experience with ISO, Zero Defects, TQM, Six Sigma and The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award Program, in addition to his background and experience in Education, Entertainment, Law, Psychology and Sports. Even if this business were notable this would require a complete rewrite. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - no coverage in reliable sources, and it's spam to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I need more time to work on it. If you'll note in the original page discussion, I asked for assistance with this and never received any responses. The page meets basic general notability guidelines, just simply not at the level of quality defined by the initiator of this deletion discussion. I request sufficient time to find an expert to revise the page per the notes written here, so that it meets the highest possible level of quality standards for Wikipedia and its users. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. --Srfalk (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — Srfalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reliable sources is your first step. Kuru (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no reliable third party resources; nothing but self-published blog entires and republished press releases. The book itself is vanity press. This just seems like a poorly crafted attempt to promote his product. Kuru (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kuru, above. The Forbes reference in the article is a press release, complete with contact details, obviously circulated quite widely. A press release, clearly written by (or for) the organisation in question is essentialy a primary sources, even if it reproduced elsewhere. Rreliable, independant sources need to be talking and writing about this topic if it is notable. The fact is that there appear to be no such sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I have taken initial steps per your suggestions; I will continue to revise according to your feedback. Thank you for your help. --Srfalk (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, those appear to be two links to blogs. Please read WP:RS then you get a chance. This is still an article about a self-published book with no reliable sources. I think waiting until sources appear or you publish something peer reviewed would be a better approach. We're not in a rush. Kuru (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as pointy nomination. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Tick Tock

It's one of billion videos on youtube, there are over thousands of videos that got over 1 millions news and were commented by reliable news-agencies, but it still doesn't mean they should have an article on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:EVENT, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:Puffery that has taken place in the entry in order to have a ground for keeping it. And it differs from such article like this because aforementioned article describes a phenomena of eruption, not just one minor video created by an unknown person and then uploaded to youtube. Mentioning it in the song's article is more than enough, since it's just another viral video based on this song, no major events happened because of that video, I don't how can be an article for that? That's ridiculous. Dramadeur (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Since this article has just been through an AfD, it was closed as No consensus three days ago, and the nominator seems to harp on the exact same arguments that spurred that nomination I see no reason why we should go a second round on this now. The nominator created the account for the sole purpose of making this nomination (checkuser, anyone?). __meco (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:good faith to assume that the user who created the second nomination is me. Just because I nominated the article the first time. You appear to have forget that several times in the first conversation I clearly and specifically said "if the community decides the article should be kept I will support that as I have done in every AfD I've been involved in". There were others who felt the article should be deleted not just me so do not assume that we're one in the same. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as above.SPNic (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per previous discussion was no consensus. I believe it should have been keep but what ever. The event asserts notability. There is no need for the second nomination, especially not so soon after. (I dont believe this is a sock puppet, why would such an active/experienced editor jeopardize their account?) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I actually think wikipedia articles about popular viral videos are a good idea, provided they get significant media coverage. My personal favorite is United Breaks Guitars. It did not change the world, or, in the nom's terms "no major events happened because of that video". True, The video did not bring democratic government to the Palestinian territories or make the Hamas leadership into peaceniks. It just got covered by major TV networks and newspapers. And made me and several million other viewers laugh. AMuseo (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep although I was responsible for the first nomination, I've accepted there is support for this article and although I think content like this is not suitable for wikipedia... the community spoke and there wasn't sufficient opinion to delete it. Therefore IMO this AfD serves no purpose as the situation and information of the article has not changed thus why would opinion change? The last AfD was pretty lengthy and that reached no consensus and thus this new AfD is disruptive. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to have rather more going for it than the usual 'viral video' we get here. (I must say my initial reaction on seeing 'viral video' was 'oh not again', and I hurried to the article before reading the !votes - as is my wont - in order not to be influenced. I came back decided to go against the swim and oppose deletion. Fooled again...) (Semi-relevant comment: Wouldn't it be nice if some of the Israeli Govt and some of Hamas got together and made a video? Trouble is, leadership loses sense of humour.) Peridon (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Seriously, where were all those sources when I googled? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Social Music

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

No notability asserted. Only hits on Gnews are false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added inline refs to the article; these are from Allmusic, Washington Post, Dusted and Aaron Copland Fund, which I think are sufficient to establish notability. Note also that a wide variety of 3rd party article links were placed on Talk:Anti-Social Music by an editor in 2006, though many of these are now dead links. AllyD (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winter 1894-95 in the British Isles

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

Not an encyclopedia article, otherwise there would be tons of articles about weather in particular islands/cities during a particular year. DimaG (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming someone can verify this information as accurate, I'd say Keep (unless someone finds a suitable merge target). A weather event of that magnitude should be just as notable as February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall or Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom, and no-one's suggesting deleting them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unambiguously. Needs a rename and could do with improvement, but it's a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. Articles on particularly unusual climactic periods are historically quite useful and certainly of lasting significance; Winter of 1946–1947 in the United Kingdom is an excellent article and a demonstration of what this sort of thing can aspire to. It certainly wouldn't lead to "tons of articles about weather" any more than having biographies of notable people leads to having millions of articles about non-notable people - there's a distinction to be drawn between notable periods and normal ones. Shimgray | talk | 21:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Winter of 1894-95 in the United Kingdom, for consistency with the other three such articles. Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, as per the other winter articles in the UK. Lugnuts (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You know what sets the other winter articles in the UK apart from this one? The other ones had these things called "sources" that showed that the topic was notable, or that the climactic period was "particularly unusual". It wasn't just somebody pulling a bunch of numbers out of a hat ("-23.9!" "-21.7!" Ooh, that's cold!!! BRRRRRRR!!!!!!) without telling us where he or she got them. It wasn't proven by some sepia pictures of a frozen river (Know what that is? That's what the Thames River looked like in 1895. I was there. BRRRRR!!!!) What a load of garbage. Mandsford 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now (at least minimally) cited. Proving the validity of the topic was not particularly difficult; I recommend it to you. Shimgray | talk | 11:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept the recommendations to look at the improved article. Shimgray added two key sources, one of which is drawn from the research of a British individual named Martin Booty [10] and which describes the event in detail (it begins "Exceptionally cold / wintry from 30/12/1894 to 05/03/1895. To horticulturists and ice skaters in East Anglia, it was the winter of the ' twelve week frost '..."). The other, entitled "Britain's lowest recorded temperatures for each month of the year, 1875-1990" shows that the lowest recorded temperatures in February during that period were in Scotland, with February 8 recording -25 C (-13 F), and -25.6 and -27.2 (-14F and -17F) on February 10 and 11. Very good work. It's a shame that the article's original author must have been looking at something, but didn't take the time to tell us what it was. Sourcing is nothing new, and country preachers have done "chapter and verse" citations for centuries. Mandsford 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very premise of the nomination is, in my opinion, wrong. Significant and notable weather events can - and should - have their own articles. The question is can notability be supported with more than primary sources? What we have at the moment is statistical evidence that it was cold, but were others talking about it (i.e. did it (or does it) receive significant independent, reliable coverage? I think it did, although it takes a while to browse news archives to find them. But here are some I fould quite quickly: Gray River Argus (NZ), 1895, New York Times (US), 1895, Poverty Bay Herald, 1894 (NZ), which mentions 105 deaths in just 2 days of storms, Hawkes Bay Herald (NZ,) 1895, The Argus (AUS), 1940, which mentions the event 45 years later, and The Argus again, this time in 1895. These are from Australian, New Zealand and US newspapers - I am sure that British newspapers would have had something to say about it too! Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A7. So Why 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Beat

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

Non notable band. DimaG (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Not a shred of notability asserted, no sources, complete orphan article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Nom withdrawn. No delete !votes. Ty 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D Udaya Kumar

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

WP:BLP1E. Article's subject designed the new Indian rupee sign, but appears to have no notability outside that one (admittedly important) event. TFOWR 18:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of a national competition, meets WP:ARTIST. The article on the new Indian rupee sign looks like stargazing to me, but D Udaya Kumar will remain notable as the winner of the competition - whether or not the sign is adopted as the unicode standard.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As D Udaya Kumar is notable - 1. for desinging Indian rupee symbol 2. for obtaining the very first PhD degree in Industrial Design in India. Angpradesh (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. At present, this is a pretty good case of one incident. The subject has a potential to satisfy WP:Creative in future. The relevant information can be mentioned in the article about the Indian rupee sign as the subject is not yet ready to have an independent article on Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) - I understand the situation. Salih (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing for merge and redirect, not for delete. Ty 05:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom, who asserts the person is notable for an important event. WP:BLP1E does not apply; this person will have an enduring place in the history of Indian currency, and per WP:CREATIVE "This person's work ... has become a significant monument". The worldwide news coverage indicates the interest in his achievement.[11] His other activities add to this.[12] Ty 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE (4.a). His single action is significant enough to get into history books for perpetuity. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: ~~but for Salih's !vote, I'd be inclined to~~ withdraw the nom at this point - my nom was prompted by a talk page discussion which touched on BLP1E, but not WP:ARTIST (and WP:ARTIST makes sense to me, somewhat belatedly). Thoughts? {{trout}} for the nom? TFOWR 07:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to withdraw the nom, if you choose, by stating that above. Withdrawal of the nom does not automatically close the debate, though if Salih also changes, then it can be a speedy keep. Ty 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erledigt ;-) TFOWR 08:23, 30 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 Boldly redirected. Also redirected Anton Cosmo there because whoever created the article doesn't realize that not every musician needs (musician) in their article name. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Cosmo (musician)

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

Unnotable musician fails WP:MUSIC. He is a member of a famous band Boston, but not during their days of fame and hitmaking. Discography points to group albums, not solo work. Also apparent COI issues. Herostratus (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find news coverage of him. Other web sources indicate he's the son of a former Boston band member. Eudemis (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here are some links. He is an FORMER MEMBER OF BOSTON not a hired session player. He toured in 2003 and 2004 and wrote three songs on the latest BOSTON album CORPORATE AMERICA RECORD.
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1734174,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_America_%28album%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_in_the_band_Boston
http://www.bandboston.com/html/ac_html.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.103.10 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-America-Boston/dp/B00006LI3R/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279729640&sr=8-1

He toured with a washed-up band and wrote 3 songs on a record nobody bought. And your point is? Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just making the POINT clear he is a former member, what is your point of being on here? Hater? Get in line there is world of them. I am sure he can care less about you or me but I am a fan of his music especially his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.103.10 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston (band) per WP:NBAND, no demonstrated individual notability. Tassedethe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston (band), as per WP:NBAND. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Windows XP editions#Tablet PC Edition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

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

This article is an unacceptable type of Content Forking of Windows XP editions#Tablet PC Edition: Both of these have almost the same contents but they tell different stories about the availability of their subject, i.e. Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. (To make matter worse, both lack sufficient sources). To resolve this content forking issue, one fork must be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back and redirect per nom. The Junk Police (reports|works) 17:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since this appears to have been around for a while, I suspect it has previously been informally merged, hence this should be kept for licensing reasons. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As Muboshgu says, there is precedent for keeping an article about a building/etc which was notable through media coverage, even though it was never build - notability is not temporary. I would recommend that it be renamed using the word "proposed" or something else that would indicate it didn't come to pass. However, that needs to be dealt with on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Requested moves -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Beavers Ballpark

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

This stadium is now extremely unlikely to be built as the team's owner is selling the team and it will move out of the Portland area. I have merged relevant content for this article back into the Portland Beavers article. Esprqii (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assuming the merge has been done, this issue is basically over, with the team slated to be sold and moved. PGE Park and the Beavers have their own pages, which should suffice. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is effectively a guess about a crystal ball. It's incredibly speculative. tedder (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources, it doesn't matter if it ever gets built. The fact that it received so much coverage created notability, which once established, does not go away. Crystal ball only applies to us as editors inserting our own speculation, not reporting the speculation (or in the case actual proposals) that is reported in the media. The media gets to speculate, we as editors do not. That is to say, I can write about possible supreme court nominees reported by the media. I cannot however add my own list of names based on whom I think it should be. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Aboutmovies. Patken4 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A topic does not lose notability. The nominator's rationale for deletion is that the project will likely be scrapped. That does not erase the large amount of coverage it received. Rex Is Not Your Lawyer, for example, did not lose its notability once it became an unlikely series. This subject was apparently notable for the past year and 4 months. Notability is not temporary. According to wikipedia's notability guidelines "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If you want to have this article deleted, please let us know exactly which notability guideline is not being met by this article. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this as never an actual stadium it shouldn't have an article. Merge releavant material back to the team. Spanneraol (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portland Beavers. The information is obviously relevant to something, ~~but since the ball park may never be created, the page should be deleted.~~ --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and forth on this but for now I'll say weak keep based on the same rationale an article about the Brooklyn Dodgers proposed domed stadium belongs. If it is kept, it should probably be renamed using the word "proposed" or something else that would indicate it didn't come to pass. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is actually a better idea. Since notability is not temporary, it is still a notable subject. I'm changing my vote to keep and rename per Muboshgu. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Power

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

non notable publication. WuhWuzDat 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Could find nothing about it on Google. The only "reference" given at the article is the magazine's own website, and when I clicked on it I got a warning that "this site may harm your computer." Kill it quick. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of non-notablity. It seems that the magazine does actuallly exist, but nobody is qriting about it, quoting it or otherwise mentioning it, which means that it fails the basic criterion of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The only material available, it seems, is on the publisher's own website (once you get past the spam and pop-ups) and one fleeting reference to its editor (here).
Delete Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user simply added his signature at the top of the AfD, but as the edit summary was "Delete" I have moved it down here as a "delete" !vote. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanda Kecakapan Khusus

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

Unsourced, non-notable topic. Rodhull andemu 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia, where it should have been stuck in the first place.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia. Not remotely notable for its own article. Davidelit (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - hasty decision to start deletion debate and per reasoning of TenPoundHammer. Non admin closure --Mo ainm~Talk 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In One Ear (song)

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

Per WP:NSONGS not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; article is unlikely ever to grow beyond stub. Mo ainm~Talk 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep Woah, woah, woah. Slow down! I just created the article about fifteen minutes ago! I've been working on adding the Chart Performance, Music Video, and Release and reception sections to the article! The song just reached number one on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart, and I was going to expand the article as I received more information... I have been using the "Back Against the Wall" article as a template for this one. At least give the article a chance. WereWolf (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have completed the article as you say, and it has 9 sentences hardly a detailed article. Mo ainm~Talk 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll add more if necessary. I was planning on expanding the music video section anyway.. Jeez... WereWolf (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Short but contains sufficient information for a standalone article; newly created and easily expandable. I think the nominator seriously jumped the gun by nominating an article fifteen minutes after its creation, which is why I'm calling for a speedy keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Graham (CEO)

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

Notability, appears to fail WP:GNG. Was unable to find reliable, independent sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. The looks verifiable (WP:V) in part (e.g., the company's web site is likely reliable enough to tell us the name of its CEO), but those sources do not address notability. Attempted sourcing via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks. No WP coverage of the company, either, or I'd suggest "merge to". j⚛e decker ^talk 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —j⚛e decker ^talk 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BLP. This article represents that Graham "claims" various achievements in his career (such as holding specified positions with specified companies), but it doesn't provide any source to show that, in fact, he does claim to have done those things. Furthermore, Graham may well have worked for those companies in those jobs, in which case saying that he "claims" to have held those jobs creates a misleading impression that the editors of Wikipedia think he is lying. If we can't source his biographical information, it would be best to delete the article rather than imply doubt about the subject's resume. The article can be re-created at a later date if the subject is later believed to be notable and his biographical information can be verified through reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence in the article and, more importantly, in any secondary sources I can find that either Graham or his company meet the notability requirements of WP. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no non-trivial coverage available to establish notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and even if every claim made in the article is true, they still don't add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerogarden

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

This article is just an advertisement for a product. There is no notability to the article and its sources are terrible. I don't believe this article is beneficial to the project.BrianSfinasSSI (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD was filed improperly; it was hard coded onto the log instead of made into an actual page. I have fixed this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HarbourLynx

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

This is ridiculous. I don't see the notability for this ferry service. It only operated one vessel on one route for only three years and it is now defunct. While I do know what happened to it (I live near Nanaimo), I still don't think it needs it's own article especially since there are also no sources or external links in the article for verification. The Royal Sealink Express has no article and it was just as minor as this service. I searched for a place the article could possibly be merged (or redirected) to and all I can find a mentioning of it is on the Waterfront Station page. This article is not needed. trainfan01 6:53, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - A ferry is a public facility, like a major road or a bridge. The fact that this ferry is now non-existent makes this piece more of a historical document and less of an ad, and there is nothing wrong with that. Certainly it needs footnotes, but the cure for that isn't deletion. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WHat kind of footnotes are you suggesting, fervent inclusionist? Oh wait, there freaking are none. No notability asserted, no sources existing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Keep per sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AFD page did exist, but the nominator also hardcoded it into the log by mistake. Carrite's !vote was also hardcoded into the log, and I moved it here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:1. Hardcoding was some sort of software glitch. This is not on me, I used the regular EDIT button.

2. This inappropriate and rude message left for me on my Talk Page:

And just where do you suggest we get "footnotes" for this article? There isn't a single reliable source about it anywhere. Burden of proof's on you, chummer. Don't say "keep but source" unless you can prove that sources exist. Otherwise we just get a bunch of "keep but sources" and no one ever gets arsed to see if there actually are sources or not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Articles are NOT to be deleted if they are appropriate and can be fixed by other means. I have no "burden of proof" to meet, I have only an opinion to offer, and it is not on me to do work for others. I write about what I want to write about. We should all do the same. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks ghits and gnews of substance to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ferry service, though short-lived, did get noted by the press from before service started through to its ultimate demise including law suits and attempts to reuse the ferry for a new service. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Sealink Express likely got those same events as well (although I was not around when it existed) and it has no article at all. Therefore it may not help at all on this. trainfan01 6:19, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Reply - The fact that Royal Sealink has no article is not really relevant. Articles don't exist until they get created, and their lack of existence doesn't meant that the subject is non-notable. It just means that nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a simple Google News Archive search turns up multiple articles that can be used as reliable sources for an article on this ferry. They clearly establish notability per our guidelines. Our guidelines represent the broader community's consensus on what should be included in Wikipedia. If we don't like the notability guideline then we can work to change it; until then, we should keep this article. As for the absence of a Royal Sealink article, there are multiple sources to support an article for it as well.^[13] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffe Communications Inc.

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

Contested prod. Article is an advertisement for a communications company, with no significant coverage in reliable sources (it should be noted that patch.com is not a reliable source, as it lacks editorial oversight, is mainly self-published, etc.) I can only find passing mentions and press releases. TN X Man 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many other similar firms whose Wikipedia Pages that I read, studied and scrutinized before I authored this page, Jaffe Communications is notable in that it is a "socially responsible" firm, concerned with improving social ills in New Jersey -- homelessness, education reform, campaign finance reform, and helping to combat adverse perceptions of people with disabilities. The firm is also notable because its principles are all former award-winning journalists who did not sacrifice their ethics when they left the newspaper business and formed a private public relations company. If Wikipedia deletes the entry for Jaffe Communications Inc., I must insist Wikipedia delete entries for Fleishman-Hillard, 5W Public Relations Allied Media Corp, Block & DeCorso, Constructive Communication, Edward Howard (Fahlgren Mortine Public Relations), MWW Group, M80 Agency, Pro-Media Communications, and countless other firms whose entries are far, far more blatant advertising vehicles.User:Savvymoose —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC). — Savvymoose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Thanks for the list. I checked the articles you mentioned above. Some have been through deletion discussions before; some others would appear to have genuine historical or cultural significance. The ones that had neither have been proposed for deletion or speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That other stuff exists is not considered a valid argument to retain this one. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as deleting the other articles you mention, you can nominate them for deletion and each will be debated on its own merits. There is even opportunity to re-nominate articles, although you ought to read WP:BEFORE before doing so. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another behind the scenes business, a public relations and publishing firm. And despite the best attempts by a PR firm at astroturfing this, including apparently uploading portraits of the principals --- now there's a way to make your conflict of interest obvious --- there's no indication that this business has the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain this entry – Please retain this entry. This firm is committed to social responsibility and has partnered with clients to undertake a variety of social issues. Unlike the other public relations/publishing firms with untouched/undeleted entries on Wikipedia, this sets this firm apart and makes it notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Also, this entry has 11 verifiable references from mainstream news media. savvymoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvymoose (talk [Special:Contributions/Savvymoose|contribs]]) 12:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: User:Savvymoose is the author of this article and is an WP:SPA. On the article's talk page he claims to be the owner of Savvymoose Properties in Vermont, a client of Jaffe, creating the article because he admires Jaffe so much. However, I have been unable to verify the existence of a company called Savvymoose Properties in Vermont.)--MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find independent and reliable sources that satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The article is grossly promotion and likely a complete COI. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and blatant advertising. Google News Archive finds only press releases. Google search finds the company's own website plus social network sites - plus of course this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jaffe Communications Inc does not come close to meeting the notability requirements of Wikipedia. It seems that it has received absolutely no coverage in secondary sources, let alone the "significant coverage" required to establish notability. The secondary sources in the article do not even make passing reference to Jaffe Communications - they are all about different topics altogether. I believe we have a social responsibility to uphold Wikipedia's core principles and delete this article. :) Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This could have been a no consensus, but there is a very strong hint of an attack about the article, for example a lot of unsourced commentary about the validity of academic qualifications, so I'm going with delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Demille-Jacobsen

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

I was tempted to CSD G10 this, but I thought I'd let the wider community have a look too. Seems to be nothing but an attack on a possible hoaxer. Every source seems to be from the "chasers" website. Nothing from a reliable source. The-Pope (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing but an attack page. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is well mentioned in the media and on dozens of other sites excluding the ones listed and wiki mirrors. But it definitly needs a few more independent refs and I'll add some later.--Dmol (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments. I've added a few more references, and do agree that many are similar. But looking through the ones listed on the original StopKaz website, I noticed that it includes good sources such as her birth certificate, a copy of the letter received from the DeMille (acting) family, and a church flyer detailing some of her claims. But most revealing is http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30493360/World-Trades-Center-and-a-Miracle-or-two where she herself makes these extrodinary claims. Similar claims are made by her on http://911digitalarchive.org/smithsonian/details/6523 . I agree the article could appear as an attack page, and maybe NPOV or COI tags should be added until fixed. But I think most of the claims are well supported and again feel that the article should stay here. Thanks.--Dmol (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page seems factual and well referenced. The person herself has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles and is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still seems to be a bunch of blogs, primary sources and other self published sources. I hope that the closing admin looks closely at the excessively poor references that have been supplied, and not just does a !vote count. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this and this are not blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are not blogs and clearly show notability.--Dmol (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the reference should be direct to the newspaper and not to the unreliable source, which could have whatever commentary it wants (contrary to Wikipedia's BLP policy) around the article. The stopkaz website should be there only as a single external link or as a reference to a comment of "her activities are being tracked by a website that has uncovered many inconsistencies in her story" or similar - but even that isn't really appropriate, as it is the primary source.

I have added to the article the two sources posted by Dmol above. They are not from stopkaz so they should help you feel better about the sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are both still self-published. Anyone could have written them. They are not a reliable source.The-Pope (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self published?!?!? One of them is from the Smithsonian archive! You really aren't interested in evaluating these sources at all, are you? You just want the article deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – marginally-notable biography. Note that the Smithsonian entry seems to be from an area of the archive that invites public submissions.[14] Not sure whether these submissions are fact-checked by Smithsonian staff or not. Bwrs (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely true that the Smithsonian article (and the other) were user-submitted, i.e., written by the subject herself, and should not be used as if the content was factual. I very much doubt if it is. The significance of those two links is to verify that 1) this woman claims to have been a 9-11 victim, relating her story in great and often contradictory detail, and 2) she refers to herself as "Dr." or "Ph.D." --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, especially the sections on self-published and primary sources to understand why we shouldn't be using sources like that - especially on a BLP. This is an encylopedia, not a witch hunt site. The verification of the alleged fraud should be covered in an independent reliable source, not done here.The-Pope (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maplestory_simulators

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

The article has been tagged for various problems for over two years now and serves as nothing more than an advertisement vehicle for MapleStory private servers, which are illegal as per the terms of service of Nexon America. It's heavily biased, is unencyclopedic and has no sources whatsoever aside from the websites it promotes. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this model nomination, and thanks for adding information about what the underlying article is about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails general notability guidelines and reads like jibberjabber. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because it's illegal but because nothing listed appears to have any notability, either individually or collectively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think due to the implausibility of a redirection, I don't even think this is worth a rediect. Otherwise the nom hit it on the head. –MuZemike 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Shostrom

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

selfwritten nn vanity piece Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does seem to be self-written or at least COI, but he has won 3 Emmys (and was nominated for a fourth) and worked on notable films and acts. Although the article needs some cleanup and sourcing, it is notable and doesn't meet deletion criteria. COI is not a valid reason for deletion. GorillaWarfare ^talk 13:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIOs first criteria. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award [...]") Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article subject has won notable awards. However I really hope someone cleans up the article and finds sources other than IMDB. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Emmy awards establish notability; they just need sourcing. I've tagged the article for referencing. This confirms he was part of the team that won for Makeup for a series: "The X-Files" ("Two Fathers/One Son, Parts I & II"). -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 30 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orohydrography of Macedonia

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

Apparently non-notable book from 1911, no information establishing notability, no sources besides the book itself establishing its mere existence; contents of article are unrelated to the book's primary content and appear to be a mere WP:COATRACK to make some political-ideological point about the concept of "Macedonia". Article was re-created by original author after previous PROD deletion (history now restored). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 29 July 2010 UTC)

Delete per nom. I don't know what political-ideological point the article creator is trying to make about Macedonia, but I do think some such point is the purpose of this article. The article doesn't define "orohydrography" or even link to a Wikipedia article defining that (there doesn't seem to be one), nor does this article say anything about drainage, mountains, watersheds, or anything relevant to the subject of the book besides the ethnic groups who live in the region, which apparently was not the main subject of this book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many books published in 1911. The topic of the book may be notable, but the book itself isn't.Mandsford 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the first academic geography book printed in Bulgaria that attempts to define the borders of Macedona, still a controversial subject. It is written by Vasil Kancov, the most renown bulgarian geographer and etnographer, known for his book Macedonia: Ethnographics and Statistics. I am uploading this book on the bulgarian wikisource, and I will expand this article as more material becomes available to me. --GStojanov (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make yourself familiar with the page somebody cited above, WP:NBOOK. Short summary: you will need to show that the book, and especially that particular aspect of its content you mention, has received a very substantial amount of independent coverage in other sources. For instance, you might have a case if you could show that general works on the history of Macedonia typically contain entire paragraphs or chapters discussing the historical impact of this book. I doubt they do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The topic of Macedonia, its borders, history, ethnic composition, is so controversial and accutely important that every bit of information is precious. I don't see why would we delete this article. There are tons of articles that can and will potentially refer to this book as a first hand testimony from a person deeply involved and knowledgeable about the topic of Macedonia. I will also upload the entire book in the wikisource. I will translate it myself, with some help from people that know bulgarian better than I do. In the process of doing that I will expand this article with additional info, for example the author gives us precious info as to how the borders of Macedonia shifted over time. It is an academic book on a subject of extreme importance and accutely interesting. Keep in mind that the word "Macedonia" was the top search word in wikipedia for quite a few days in the years past. --GStojanov (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page, since there is literally no sourcing provided or findable about the book, and the article itself is not really about the book, or even about orohydrography whatever that is. Then someone (perhaps GStojanov) should create a different page, with a different title, about the borders or ethnography of Macedonia, citing this book as one of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me. I'm translating the book in English on Wikisource s:en:Orohydrography of Macedonia, and after I have enough material, I will improve the article. You, of course, are welcome to help, if you can/want. The reason why I believe this book is notable is its author and thopic. Its author Vasil Kancov is the best informed person on the ethnic composition of Macedonia at the end of the 19th century, and is still the top authority on this issue. The topic of the book is also accutely important and highly controversial. So many wikipedia articles can potentially be affected by the contents of this book, so please bear with me while I translate the book, and do help, if you can/want. GStojanov (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've removed the bold "keep" from the above post of yours. Nothing to do with your argument, just a point of order because everybody is supposed to provide such a bolded "vote" only once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I wasn't sure if I should re-state my opinion again or not. GStojanov (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you said the author and the topic is notable. But it doesn't mean this book is notable. See: WP:INHERITED. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More or less yes. And according to the notability criteria (No 5) if the author is important, all of his work may be considered notable. The book has been neglected and almost forgotten for a long tome (partly because it was published nine years after its author was assasinated), but it attracted a lot of interest lately with the re-emmergence of the Macedonian Issue. GStojanov (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. (Non-admin closure) GorillaWarfare ^talk 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tandelsham

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

I originally speedied this as a hoax, as there are no Google hits on it other than the article itself, and map sites haven't heard of it. The speedy was removed (it's a coincidence that two people who know it would turn up together, when the rest of the world apparently hasn't heard of it), but with no evidence that it exists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, as the article has been speedy-deleted as a blatant hoax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the pub has now closed, meaning that Tendelsham only consists of two houses. It is a place in Devon. The fact that online maps have not heard of it is not surprising. Anyone who knows these rural parts can understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.42.130 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was housekeeping. Simple closure per req. (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tandelsham

~~:Tandelsham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)~~ ~~:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)~~ I originally speedied this as a hoax, as there are no Google hits on it other than the article itself, and map sites haven't heard of it. The speedy was removed (it's a coincidence that two people who know it would turn up together, when the rest of the world apparently hasn't heard of it), but with no evidence that it exists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I speeded from the Talk page by mistake, and my attempts to fix this haven't been successful. I'll do it again - would someone who knows how please close this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUNT

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

Co-nominating article about the band's album for deletion

I had declined the speedy delete on this article because it made assertions of notability. However, having been able to check out their "official website", (which I could not do from work as my office blocks webs.com sites) it appears the band is a bunch of tweens and teens; it is unlikely they are the success they claim to be. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. While there may be a band calling themselves that, nobody can sell 3 million copies without the media noticing, especially as that would have meant about half the total population of Serbia would have bought it. WP:BULLOCKS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. I agree, it looks like a hoax. No real mention of it anywhere, and a band that famous would definitely have third-party sources. Plus the "album art" or whatever that image seems to be was obviously created with Picnik or a similar service, which is highly unlikely for a band that claims to be of that caliber. I put a speedy delete tag on the image, but will refrain from doing anything to the article until consensus is determined...GorillaWarfare ^talk 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holidayz

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Per WP:CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS 09:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding much for third-party sources and the article makes no assertions of notability. Seems to fail WP:N and WP:V. Additionally, it seems this article is not the first -- a search reveals that Holidayz-The movie has been speedily deleted twice: once per A3 and once per G11. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film fails the notability guidelines of WP:FILMNOT. These guidelines suggest that notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Although "significant coverage" is somewhat objective, a basic internet search indicates that this guideline is not met. The guideline also provides a list of attributes to help determine if a film is notable, such as receiving full-length reviews or being of historical significance. These attributes are not met with this pre-production film. Perhaps when/if the film is completed, it may become notable, but it isn't at the moment. See WP:NFF. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waaaay WP:TOOSOON for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete piling on and per WP:NFF.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The movie is not yet finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.122.159 (talk) 10:04, July 30, 2010

Afd discussions should talk place only on the main page, not the talk page. I've moved the above comment for you. Thanks. elektrik SHOOS 18:05, 30 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) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths by corporal punishment

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

We discussed rationale for inclusion in this list on the talk page - which raised some problematic issues. Most notable of all was defining things as corporal punishment and whether some of it was simply child abuse. Finding sources to legitimately call listed items corporal punishment is hard. Furthermore we saw some BLP issues in terms of naming perpetrators, particularly prior to their trials (which flies in the face of rough BLP consensus over reporting prosecutions).

Even more concerning was the possible POV pushing issues associated with the article and it's content.

I initially suggested a merge into Corporal punishment but it was pointed out that several of the cases were already mentioned there and that the remainder were only marginal for inclusion.

Ultimately there was a growing consensus that the article should go up for deletion; so here it is :) Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A random and unstable assortment without known criteria. Where are the people executed by stoning? I see no prospect of improvement; the numbers of notable deaths are huge and unmanageable withing one list, but no one seems to care anyway. East of Borschov 13:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is an unworkable list, with some viewing child abuse as corporal punishment it could mean 10000s of notable cases should be mentioned. I supported the idea of simply making this list about deaths by official corporal punishment, but such a list would be very short and not suitable for a whole article. The well sourced cases should be mentioned on the Corporal punishment page (some of which are), but without doubt this article should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially, this is a fluctuating list of incidents of sadistic child abuse or police brutality, all of ended in a homicide. The history indicates that examples get added and removed depending on who the latest editor is, but any attempt to catalog the world's outrages would be unmanageable. Mandsford 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. The person who administered corporal punishment to Melonie Hamber acted "as an agent of governmental power" (see Under color of authority). Whether that person acted lawfully or unlawfully is irrelevant. Melonie's death is a predictable result of a Maryland law that authorizes parents and stepparents to strike minor children with lethal weapons. The deletion of the report of Melonie's death would be nothing more than censorship on behalf of a state that empowers its citizens to strike children with lethal weapons. They can bury Melonie's body but they cannot bury their shame. MementoLaree (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a platform for POV's --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above post is a perfect example of why this article needs deleting! BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen For all the reasons listed here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Errant: Wikipedia is not a platform for censorship (WP:NOTCENSORED) but censorship is exactly what the proposed deletion would be. MementoLaree (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where the event is individually notable it will work as it's own article. The difficulty of inclusion into this list means either we will have 100's of dubiously notable/sourced events or (as is the case at the moment) one or two with no inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is a place to record; not to make a point or a stand. Please do not accuse good faith editors of censorship --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We cannot see any reason why this article needs to stay here - as has already been said, the article on corporal punishment may well contain a couple of examples of death by corporal punishment - to have a list which is partly a magnet for accusations, slurs and furore seems a bad move, especially (as has been stated above) there are potentially thousands of cases of deaths by corporal punishment. What constitutes a 'notable death by corporal punishment'. And finally, I don't think anyone is attempting to censor anything - we read the NOTCENSORED page, but all it seems to say is that the encylopedia should have articles about distasteful subjects where necessary - not that just because something is distasteful it instantly warrants inclusion! We can't see how it would be censorship, or any great loss, to remove this incomplete, not-very-informative and potentially damaging to those (falsely) named upon it. All the best, Artie and Wanda (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - An extremely poor list. Deaths where? Around the world??? Deaths when? Since the beginning of recorded history??? And there are just four names here? A POV trojan horse, in my estimation. Brutal seacaptains? The Spanish inquisition? Carrite (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In Canada, people do not hit children with belts or other objects under color of authority because doing so is prohibited. See Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General). The tragic death of Melonie Hamber stands as a testament to the danger of using a belt to hit a child. And see Traumatic hyphemas in children secondary to corporal punishment with a belt. American Journal of Ophthalmology. Volume 135, Issue 5, Pages 719-720 (May 2003). MementoLaree (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't. What it stands testament to is the unwisdom of allowing a manifest psychopath with a violent history to be in charge of a 2-year-old. As for the laws in Canada or anywhere else, they are adequately covered in Corporal punishment in the home and not relevant to this discussion. Alarics (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - It's just an arbitrary list of random incidents, two of which are already mentioned in the history section of the main article. Of the rest, only one has anything to do with "corporal punishment" as generally understood, and that took place in 1921 (prison flogging) and was a man who was already weak from malaria, with no proof that it was the flogging that killed him, rather than the malaria. For my more detailed comments as to why the other individual cases cited are off the point, see here. "List of deaths from corporal punishment" conveys (and perhaps was intended to convey) the implication that people might die from ordinary spanking or paddling, which is objectively absurd, and suggests an extreme POV. Alarics (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The List of deaths by corporal punishment is no more or less "arbitrary" or "random" than the List of unusual deaths, and you have not proposed to delete the latter list. None of the deaths on the corporal punishment list were due to spanking or paddling. That list contains an invitation to help expand it: "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it". Has that invitation been revoked? MementoLaree (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "None of the deaths on the corporal punishment list were due to spanking or paddling." -- Exactly so! And yet spanking or paddling is what "corporal punishment" generally means. You make my point. Alarics (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per Carrite. Surely if we include deaths by corporal punishment in and before the 19th century, this list will rapidly grow to thousands of entries long, most being not particularly notable soldiers, sailors, and criminals. Adult corporal punishment kills, not always, but often enough, and it's only been in the last 100 years that this fact has come as a surprise to anyone. If we want to restrict it to individually notable cases that already have their own articles, I could see keeping, but I only see one blue link here, that's not much of a list. --GRuban (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Adult corporal punishment kills, not always, but often enough," -- where did you get that idea from? I should think it is extremely rare, and non-existent in recent decades. Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei have currently some of the most severe judicial corporal punishment (up to 24 strokes of the cane), and I never heard that anybody died from it. Still, we agree that the article needs deleting. Alarics (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, that's what I wrote, it's only rare in the last 100 years. Death by flogging was relatively common in the 19th century and before. Here: [15] "On Christmas day 1736, the Holy Inquisition held an auto de fe (Act of Faith) in Lima's main square where twenty women would be flogged to death". [16] "At one time men were literally flogged to death with a hundred lashes or more. The figure three hundred has been mentioned in history, and in the time of Czar Nicholas II a common punishment in Russia was one-thousand lashes; Peter the Great had limited the number in the Russian army to two-hundred. As late as the early 17th century a thousand lashes was a punishment for mutiny and other serious offences in the British forces; this was more prolonged than hanging but just as fatal." Here are more books links about death from flogging that don't lend themselves to easy copy and paste.[17] [18] And why do you think 24 strokes is the most severe even in this day and age? Here is 100 lashes, I'm sure I can find more with more than a minute of looking.[19] --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because Islamic "lashes" in the Middle East are nowhere near as severe as strokes of the cane in the British tradition as in Singapore etc. 100 strokes of the cane probably would kill. Alarics (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I bow to your clear expertise about specifics. I hope I have, however, shown that death by corporal punishment in earlier centuries was not particularly rare or unusual. --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Unmanagable list with no clear definition for inclusion. Edward321 (talk) 13:04, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Keyes

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

A previous no consensus keep, this run-of-the-mill associate prof at Dublin City University fails all nine points in WP:PROF. Her h-index is about 10. She seems to study ruthenium complexes; a Google Scholar search by that reveals many papers with much higher citation numbers. She is a coauthor on a single book. Her coauthors have much higher citation numbers; [20], [21]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the cited sources indicate she is now a full professor. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

delete. No prospects of improving this article through regular editing and in foreseeable future. This is probably as valid a reason to delete as interesting things but it all comes to a simple fact: there's no realiable third-party information for even a stub of a biography. East of Borschov 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have added to the article her receipt of the presidents award and modified the entry to show that she is now, according to the cited source, a full professor and that she "made outstanding research contributions in physical chemistry, promoted science to new audiences, pushed the boundaries of multi- and interdisciplinary science, contributed significantly to social and economic development.". (Msrasnw (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That appears to be an in-house award. No source says she was made full professor. Her university page says "associate." Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the official university website, she is merely an associate professor. Lots of my students call me "prof", but I am, sadly, not tenured. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar I think you might find that there is often a substantial delay in updating different bits of websites - here http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=1002 I think it says Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So we have to keep this article on faith that you are right and her university page is wrong? Give her a call and ask her. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of full professorship: I think you might accept this http://www.sfi.ie/news-events/events/sfipci-pharmachemical-event/ , http://www.dcu.ie/research/staff-profiles.shtml and this http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=1002. The text on the Profile on the DCUs website reads Professor Tia Keyes - Professor Tia Keyes lectures in physical chemistry in the School of Chemical Sciences. Tia joined DCU as a lecturer in physical chemistry in September 2002 and had previously held lectureship in physical chemistry for four years prior to this at Dublin Institute of Technology where she was a founder member of the FOCAS Institute. Tia is a member of the National Centre for Sensor Research and the SFI CSET funded Biomedical Diagnostics Institute. Tia was awarded the Presidents Research Award for 2006." Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I don't see why being a full professor or not has anything to do with this discussion. According to WP:PROF, not even a chair of a Department or Associate Dean is inherently notable and this goes for full professors, too, of course. What we need is evidence of impact. --Crusio (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - of course you are correct but I think it might be a bit important as far as establishing notability. It does seem to influence people in their voting in these debates and promotion to professorship is often because someone has done something judged "notable" as viewed by a university. DCU clearly respects Prof Keyes and her work. The nominator for deletion mentioned "run-of-the-mill associate prof" which I think is incorrect, and has a slightly, to my mind any way, derogatory tone, and this should be corrected as it is likely to mislead the debate. I will look for more evidence of impact. But the case for retention seems to me to improved rather than diminished since the last attempt to delete the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)) PS: Nice to see you back Crusio[reply]

Question: Is her recent work - the work of "Tia Keyes and colleagues at Dublin City University" - in Chem Comm evidence of notability as this publication, published by the RSC, "contains communications (short descriptions of new work requiring rapid publication) of significant work from across the chemical sciences"? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No. Her career is doing well, and she, like all scientists, has made discoveries in her speciality. But there are about one million professors in the US alone; [22]. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors should be aware that "Professor" means something different (and more significant) outside the USA. In the British system, and systems derived from it, ordinary tenured academics are called "Lecturer" rather than "Professor." Tia Keyes seems to be an "Associate Professor", which means something like "Assistant Chair" in US-speak. However, GS gives her h-index as 11, a citation level at which we've both accepted and rejected articles in the past (depending on the field). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to her university bio, though generally called "Professor," Prof. Keyes is in fact an Associate Professor (which, in the Irish system, is the step just under Department Chair). However, this of itself doesn't make for notability: see WP:PROF. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Subject is heading for notability but is not quite there yet. Academic rank is of no relevance. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. Per Xxanthippe. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. Non-notable award, no evidence (yet) of significant impact. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about figures for the H index: I am not sure about our use - or indeed the calculation - of the H-index but looking on Web of Science (Results here: User:Msrasnw/TiaKeyes) if I have calculated correctly (which I might not have done) does the H-index come out at 15-16 rather than the 10-11 in the above comments - and would this help with retention? (Also there seem to be 82 papers) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it would help, although one notes that there are no single-author papers. The 10-11 came from GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Our esteemed collegue DGG argued last time this was up for deletion that "Google Scholar should not be relied on to find all references, especially for papers published before 2000, and especially for work in chemistry. Many papers from ACS publications have in the past not been included there do to lack of agreement between ACS and ISI." Is this accepted and should we then be using figures like 82 peer reviewed papers, of which the highest have counts of 56, 47, 43, 37, and 28 respectively? "Some of these 6 were in Journals published by the American Chemical Society, the most prestigious in the subject." and "This is sufficient for notability--physical chemistry is not a field with a very high density of citations. The results here are a clear demonstrations of it." Any thoughts (Msrasnw (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That was then; GS now finds more papers, including American Chemical Society publications. I am happy to concede that 16 is the appropriate h-index (assuming all the papers you found had Keyes as a co-author, which isn't clear from your list), but in a field where many papers have a quite a few authors, this is not a very high h-index and, in my view, not quite enough to meet WP:PROF #1. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GS now includes ACS journals. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Above we have a judgment "Subject is heading for notability but is not quite there yet". A judgement which others seem to be following. Was this on the basis of the H-index of 10 and "run-of-the-mill associate prof" .... as per the nomination? The h-index seems to be 16 which seems to me substantially higher. If this is not enough do we have a target figure in mind? Is it 17 or 20 ? Is physical chemistry "a field with a very high density of citations"? And the "run-of-the-mill associate prof" is not a true reflection of her post, if in the Irish system this post is treated as a Professorship and just one step under Department Chair. I suspect that if the figure of 16 and the true nature of her post had been reported at the start before judgments were made then this would have not got so far - and it is well known that there is path dependency in such matters that makes it difficult for most people to reverse judgments. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As several people have pointed out above, her rank, professorial or otherwise, is of no relevance here. As to h-index, my personal threshold would be around 20 in a field where many papers have a quite a few authors. More generally, however, berating the other participants in the discussion might not be the best way to argue for this article's retention. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly sorry for my poor tone - we all have our own views - and mine is that I think that Afd is far too hard on many academics and that deleting peoples' work is something which should be done very carefully. I often don't see that care has been taken and there are often inaccuracies (which I am all too prone to too) which don't seem to get corrected. I don't see how our encyclopedia is improved by many of these deletions (and efforts to prove notability). I might be alone in this view but at least it is I think helpful to have it expressed but am sorry if I have expressed it too forcefully and with anger. Best wishes to all and sorry again. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you disagree with Wikipedia's notability policy, this is not the place to debate it. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing here about policy only interpretations of policy in this case and lack of care by those pushing for deletions. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

An extra important reference: I was just checking the refs - and it seems that this one: Fibre optic oxygen sensor based on fluorescence quenching of evanescent-wave excited ruthenium complexes in sol-gel derived porous coatings, by MacCraith, B.D., McDonagh, C.M., O'Keeffe, G., Keyes, E.T., Vos, J.G., O'Kelly, B., McGilp, J.F. 1993 The Analyst 4 (118), pp. 385-388 which has a citation score of 135 was not included in the Web of Science, Google Scholar or Scopus lists as the author is listed as Keyes, E.T. rather the Keyes, T.E.. This would seem to me her most cited paper by far and we missed it. I doubt whether this will change anything much but just include it for future reference. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

~~That's because E.T. Keyes (Emmetine T. Keyes) is a different person. Please be more careful in the data you provide here: now I no longer trust the h-index you gave us earlier.~~ -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Tia E Keyes DCU and Emmetine T. Keyes DCU both writing on the same topic with the same co-author and more importantly our Tia E Keyes lists this publication as her publication on her website in the bibliography there [23] - which would indicate that it was hers. Please have a really close check of this - and don't worry about your admonishing me. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) PS: I would like to be trusted but I provided the list of refs with their citation counts for my estimation of the h-index in the link above.[reply]

If "Tia E Keyes" and "Emmetine T. Keyes" are the same person, then I apologise; I've wronged you and jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and the paper is by the subject. However, I don't think it actually changes the h-index, does it? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries an easy mistake to make - no I don't think it changes the h-index (which is in itself an interesting and problematic aspect of the measure). But I think it will help when it comes to redoing the article next time if it is deleted because it will get counted by those who like the metrics. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) ps: here is her bibliography cut and pasted (with the ET Keyes ref emboldened) from the asp lnk which keeps going down on her website User:Msrasnw/KeyesRefshomepage. PPS The Web of Science includes a total number of citations which is 948 and h-index 16.[reply]

delete fails WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last time I encountered Msrasnw on these pages he put notability tags on articles I had created or had an interest in. [24] (The articles have so far survived.) Now he is badgering me on my talk page. I shall not contribute further to this debate.Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I had hoped it was OK to ask editors involved in an Afd to have another look if new information was made available - sorry to have bothered you I didn't mean to badger you and won't do so again (and am not sure about the relevance or issue with the need for refs on Leslie Barringer's books) best wishes anyway :).(Msrasnw (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It was inappropriate, and also unnecessary: editors do continue to monitor these pages, and will change their !vote if significant new information appears. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I'll not do this again. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. I don't see the case for WP:PROF. Which is to say, this looks to me like the academic equivalent of an A7 speedy deletion (I'm not arguing that this should be speedied, only that it's similar) in that despite the length of the article I don't see anything in it that I can point to as a reason she's significant. There are some awards from her own university, but they're not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who reached number one on the New Zealand Singles Chart

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

This list does not appear to be genuine. The references cited do not support the content, the content is incomplete (several artists I remember being at #1 on the main pop charts are not included) and an earlier page under a similar title by the same author was deleted after having been found to be a copy and paste from List of artists who reached number one on the Australian singles chart. The artists missing are mostly local New Zealand artists which makes me suspect the same has happened again. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Daveosaurus (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This user has been warned repeatedly for failing to abide by wiki guidelines and I seriously doubt that any attempt by them to create any version of this article is going to be reliable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, and I am concerned about the accuracy of information. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the spirit of WP:NOT. WP is rife with all sorts of lists. We need a policy or guideline on what constitutes the sort of list that should be allowed on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Mostly wanted to chime in that the idea of a policy on lists is a brilliant idea -- I feel like I run into questionable lists pretty frequently. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball deleteas bogus list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Krk airport

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

Highly POV-laden article in broken English, on what appears to be a non-notable (non-)event: the "defense" of this location during the Yugoslav wars apparently, according to the article, never happened. The place was merely occupied by military in order to prevent a hostile offensive, which – as far as I understand the article – never materialized. No actual fighting is reported. The claims about the strategic/historical significance of this defensive move appears to be entirely WP:OR – the whole thing is essentially just an unsourced POV fork of Croatian War of Independence#1991: Preparations, followed by war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The action appears to have been a minor, non-notable sideshow to the Croatian war. The article provides no evidence that it was important or notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Heim Theory

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

Article reads like promotional of a non-notable fringe theory, if not complete crackpottery. If an article starts: "[It] is an entirely novel and consistent purely geometric theory", it starts wrong. (I would have nominated it for cleanup first, but I don't thing any part of the article is salvageable.) Delete (and possibly redirect to Heim theory), and remove any mention of it from Fine structure constant and any other related article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, as I already said in the Talk page, this entry is completely inappropriate for wikipedia (if not plain nonsense), and the sheer extent of the article and the mountain of questionable maths content will be very misleading as an unsuspecting reader might actually think that it is legit and at the same level as peer reviewed science content. Just delete it. Aknochel (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by Mike. --Steve (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability; I can find no literature on this. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudo-scientific garbage. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autogeek

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

WP:ADVERT for a non-notable website per WP:WEB. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted; no sources; per nom. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in Central Province, Sri Lanka

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

Was speedy-delete-tagged as a copyvio of http://www.bhoomi.lk/srilanka_cities_in-Central_Province-3-a.aspx and http://www.bhoomi.lk/srilanka_cities_in-central_province-3-Y.aspx , but there are objections in its talk page:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The information in this article and similar articles were not taken from http://www.bhoomi.lk/srilanka_cities_in-Central_Province-3-a.aspx nor http://www.bhoomi.lk/srilanka_cities_in-central_province-3-Y.aspx. The names of the towns were from here and the article was also referenced, plus it is a list and there are others like it such as List of towns and villages in the Republic of Ireland, List of towns in England, List of towns in Wales, List of cities and towns in Russia etc. so I don't see what the problem is.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got the links wrong then. A Google search gave bhoomi.lk link as the first result. But I am not sure whether editors allowed quote this much long list. However both bhoomi.lk and fallingrain are unreliable sources. I have no problem with the topic and indeed I think it is a must have. But I don't think it should be a copy/pasted list and superfluous one too. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am not sure a list of town names per se is copyrightable; the copy-past problems introduced in the article should be cleaned up, but once that is done, I don't see any reason why the article should not continue to exist. Presumably, Central Province in Sri Lanka has towns in it. Having a list of them is likely no less useful than List of cities and towns in New Hampshire or other similar articles. This appears to be primarily a cleanup issue... --Jayron32 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of town names in alphabetical order is not protected by copyright law. Article seems to meet WP standards. Borock (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking starting an AfD, not just this list but also for other provincial lists. I believe List of towns in Sabaragamuwa, and List of towns in Western Province, Sri Lanka meet CSD A3 criteria. I found several issues are there common to all 9 provincial articles.

Source: fallingrain.com is unreliable per WP:RS, if not inaccurate.

Creation:copy/pasted lists perhaps copyright infringing

Accuracy:misleading, factually wrong (Will explain below)

Quality:poorly formatted, a bunch of red links. Honestly I don't who's going to create them blue links.

Notability (data, not the list itself):Dubious and superfluous list. My home is situated in Central province, but I'm afraid except for a handful few, rest of these hundred of names I have never heard of. In Sri Lanka even private lands have names. (ref: Henry W. Cave, Golden Tips) So therefore there are may be hundreds tiny hamlets. Are they all encyclopedic?

In this list and other lists as well, a large majority of the names appear are not towns at all. There are in fact villages and hamlets. So proclaiming them as towns is wrong. In Sri Lanka, a settlement is considered as a town only if it has a local government structure. We have clear list for them, List of municipalities in Sri Lanka. Percentage of urban population in Sri Lanka is low, 26% as I remember, if we have this much of towns, why the urban population is so low. I believe our editors might notice the contradiction therefore the inaccuracy.

I would like to propose a remedy too. I have a 1:500,000 map of Sri Lanka by the Department of Survey (Sri Lanka). It is very reliable, up-to date, the standard scale for desk maps. I can create lists afresh using this map. It has around 25-30 labels pin a district, that would give 75-90 settlements in a province, and 650-800 settlements island-wide. I think it is a good balance between quantity and notability. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this discussion should probably take place at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where there are users more well-versed than we are in copyright law, rather than here. Bwrs (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Litle & Co.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Litle & Co.

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

Apparently non-notable corporation, as defined by WP:CORP. Only claims in the article are to non-notable awards won by the company. Nothing else here appears to be appropriate to Wikipedia. Jayron32 05:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yet another behind the scenes business -- a payment processing platform and merchant services organization -- that makes no case for the kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Blackhurst

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

Unsuccessful beauty pageant contestant. The "references" don't establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, not notable, no photo, no reason to keep this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beauty queens need to (at the very least) win a major state title to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Ridge (Web Series)

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Per WP:CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS 04:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has yet to start filming, and I can't find any news beyond the TV Guide interview linked in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 18:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey

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

Self-promo article of non-notable musicians. Special-T (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references on the page include articles by two Allmusic critics, demonstrating 3rd party recognition amounting to notability. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable band with a considerable international following, as shown by a Google News search[25] which reveals 600 hits in the archives including substantial articles in The New York Times[26], Boston Globe[27], and plenty of others, e.g.[28][29][30][31][32][33].
I'm totally fine with keeping it and withdrawing the AFD. Maybe I didn't dig far enough. The article could probably just use some work (kind of press-release style that seems to inflate the importance of some events). - Special-T (talk) 05:07, 30 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 snow delete. Article was deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs) on 02:01, 2 August 2010. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological Space

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

PROD-contested by an IP whom I'm assuming is the article creator, not logged in. Per WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY. elektrik SHOOS 02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay criterion is much overused, as here. This edit summary, however, makes it clear that this is a novel hypothesis that the author just invented to propound directly in Wikipedia without proper peer review and external publication first, in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen -- per no original research. The editor admits the entire article is a creation of his own hypothesis. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wish there was a speedy deletion category for articles which are blatant OR. ~~(I might actually propose this, come to think of it.)~~ read the logic as to why it doesn't exist, and i understand. disregard. elektrik SHOOS 05:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, and unreadable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly original research; just another way of stating that cultures can conflict, but stated in a pseudo-formal way. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:UGH!. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seem to be strong arguments in favour of a merge or redirect, but the target for such is either unknown or doesn't exist. Further discussion of this should take place on the talk page, though, not in an AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Transformers

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

No evidence this product line is notable. WP:DIRcruft and trivia bleeding over from the ridiculousness of the Transformers walled garden. Attempt to assert notability is from a single fan site -- hardly evidence of significant third-party coverage for these products, singly or as a whole. Search for sources yields only manufacturer's site, Transformer fan sites, and Star Wars sites. --EEMIV (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A sinple article for a toy line, detailing it with good references. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)
Löschen per nom looked for sources myself, even Toyfare coverage is sparse Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually added a reference from Toyfare which voted the Milennium Falcon one of the toy toys of the last 10 years. Mathewignash (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said sparse, very limited coverage not enough to write an ecylopedia artilce. Most of this is referenced to Hasbro Website, we do not need one for toylines that really fail to do anything for than list the toys in the line. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen I'd support merging this with the article on the Star Wars toy line, which is unquestionably notable, but I discovered to my complete and utter shock that we don't have an article on that. We should though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and given the lack of commentary, third-party perspective, etc., this article wouldn't be an appropriate starting point. :-] --EEMIV (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A straight forward, direct, and referenced article. It's a bit obscure. If they make a Star Wars toy article, you can merge it back to that, but there isn't one is there? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cullen

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

Tagged lacking importance and sources for over two years. I should put my CV up on WP! Bleakcomb (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for Phil Cullen radio returns other places he has posted his resume; Google News (minus results for "basketball," there being a college hoops star by the name) doesn't return anything; neither does Google Scholar. Awards are mentioned in general, but there is nothing saying what they are, whether they are major awards, etc.; I found no news of awards, while I would suspect a search for Phil Cullen award -basketball -Utah would turn up something. There seems to be a lack of notability. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if he's won awards, they're very minor ones that didn't get any lasting coverage. I can't see any notability here, I'm afraid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dots (game). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kropki

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

Doesn't provide a single source, no claims of notability. — Timneu22 · talk 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a lot at the polish wikipedia, including nice figures and stuff. References in that article look weak. The word is so common in Polish it's hard to do a search... I'd lean lightly toward keeping on the theory that this looks real and sources are going to be hard to find. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I think I can get a lot more out on this topic, please tell me what you think of my latest update. Grizato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizato (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs sources that help meet WP:N still. Basically reviews in things other than blogs and message boards, or entries in non self-published books. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Entry on Board Game Geek, as an external link; will that do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.94 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, generally not for a number of reasons. One BGG is more-or-less a blog/wiki where anyone can edit as I recall. Two it covers _everything_ which many people think means it doesn't count toward WP:N... Hobit (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can this page redirect to the Dots-Game article? I just realised it's the same thing.
- Probably a good idea. I'd say let's wait for this discussion to close at it's normal time in the hope someone else thinks it should be kept under this title and can improve it. Otherwise I think a redirect is the best outcome. Hobit (talk) 08:34, 24 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) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to dots (game) seems correct, given the first sentence of that article, and indeed the interwiki links at pl:Kropki (gra). Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dots (game) as alternate name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Deleted content tells me it is the same game, both articles tell me it is the same game.--ClubOranje^T 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the article's third nomination with the first resulting in no consensus and second as keep within a bundle nomination (see 2nd nom). I'm not sure of the need of compiling all songs from every album in the series into a single list like this by overly emphasizes the original artists, who have nothing to do with these albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate method of listing songs. Really no different from having "List of [name of artist] songs," clearly meets WP:SALAT and is easily verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these aren't of songs by an artist, these are a list of songs covered by an artist (if a group of kids that change on almost every album can be a called an artist). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's kind of stretching the definition, but thematically it's really no different than a songs-by-artist list. I think precedent will make this one a keeper, as well as the ease of finding sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roughly equivalent to a list of songs by an artist, and frankly nominator's reasoning for deletion is rather unclear, especially considering this was kept twice before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this will eventually become a sortable table, and it was a good solution to the problem that was posed in the [2nd nomination]. The problem that we had before was the false suggestion that the original artists were being heard on the albums, but that was later fixed. However, I can see where the artist information is useful in showing the artists that pass the image test for the record producers who are marketing to children and their parents (what, no Eminem?). Mandsford 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion nomination offers absolutely no argument that the best solution to the article's perceived shortcomings is deletion. Townlake (talk) 15:54, 30 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Burns (musician)

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

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

"Contested" prod. Subject is "American musician and music producer" on The John Kerwin Show. No evidence at all that this meets WP:MUSICIAN or WP:BIO. Five Youtube sources and one recording label. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was given notification of this as though I was the creator of the article, but in fact I created an article Nicholas Burns. The person who overwrote that with the article in question is user:Raaawb. Later someone moved it to Nicholas Burns (musician). So Raaawb should be notified of this request for deletion, not me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when the article was moved to Nicholas Burns (musician), the person who did it created a new disambiguation article Nicholas Burns. Actually, he should have renamed (moved) the Nicholas Burns (musician) article back to Nicholas Burns in order to preserve the history. Now there's a problem -- how to preserve the old history of the disambiguation article if you delete this article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes please keep this, I have tried to improve the article by adding more information and references and still looking for more. He is the on-air bandleader and "sidekick" on the show since 2006 and was a key member of the Hybrid/BMG group "All Hours" (which also needs its own article and which I may also try to prepare). Thank you. LaLaFoote (talk) 13:11, 22 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) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not pass WP:BIO, in that none of it is either "significant" nor focused on him. Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katz-Helen and Ray Whittle, Jr. Memorial Foundation Inc.

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

Non-profit corporation that awards scholarships. Prod contested on the grounds of two articles in local newspapers, one in The Brunswick News and one in The Islander. Not even close to being enough to establish notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 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) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Foundation of purely local interest, giving scholarships in a town of less than 20,000 population, and reported in only the smallest and most local media. I could change my mind if it got any regional coverage, such as something in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm reading this as a nomination withdrawn with a view to making the article a redirect to page about the incident. (non admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McKinney

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

fails WP:BLP1E. The coverage only seems to be about issues tangentially associated to the validity of his conviction - a single issue - and the argument that "he has lots of google hits" is a bad one. Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Subject is notable for role in ongoing national news event, the attempt to subpoena student records relating to a death row case, as well as the ongoing controversy over possible wrongful convictions in the U.S. and especially in Illinois. Major stories in New York Times, LA times, ABC News, Chicago Tribune, etc. etc. Certain to keep cropping up as case wends through appeals and case, Bill Whittaker (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, brilliant. In that case, you wouldn't mind providing them? Something which would have been useful say, when you wrote the article. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, maturity is important in discussions like this, see Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility 1(d). The stub already mentiones McKinney's relevance to both journalism and legal precedence in DP cases, and there are already references to both the Trib and ABC articles.Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." - do you really think that two news articles (the minimum needed to establish basic notability) is enough to pass BLP1E in this situation? Particularly since they were written one day apart, which is hardly "persistent coverage". Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References added to demonstrate longevity of story. If you want more, let me know.Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of story, yes; so the story should have an article. "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved? It appears Ironholds is dropping his deletion request in favor of making Anthony McKinney a redirect to Anthony McKinney murder conviction (or whatever title he deems appropriate) with this article content included. I have no objections to this. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly; the story seems to be about the seizure of records, not the actual case. I'd suggest an article on either that or shoving it in say, the article on the school district. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine with me.Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; you want to do the moving and rearranging? I'll try and find someone who knows how to close these things. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about Anthony McKinney murder conviction controversy or something else? Bill Whittaker (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That probably works better, yeah. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 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) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian state election campaign, 2006

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

The article in question is utterly unsalvageable. It attempts to microscopically dissect a state election campaign in a fashion which violates WP:NOTNEWS, and advocates strongly and persistently against the party of government (Labor) in an apparent breach of WP:SOAP. The mass of sections reads like a laundry list, and the great majority of the article relates to incidents which had no notability or significant coverage in reliable sources - indeed, some of it is primary sourced to party websites, and I haven't even checked that all of the links even work. I had considered rewriting the article entirely based on reliable sources such as Australian Journal of Politics and History, archived copies of the Financial Review and etc, but on reflection, the journal says "The new year in Victorian politics got off to a slow start" (52:4 p650), and invests a grand total of three (3) pages on the election campaign in two sections: "Prelude to the Poll: the Policy Debate" (53:2, p.295-6) and "The Election Campaign" (p.296-297) are all there is, making me think this article is entirely unnecessary - it's no more notable than any other election campaign. Although now quite dated, a similar article for SA was deleted in April 2007. Orderinchaos 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's original research. Barrylb (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References are provided and the article documents events during the campaign which are of historical interest. Note that the page was previously nominated for deletion on February 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was strongly in favour of Keep. Peter Campbell 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even I voted for it back then - you can see my vote there, was basically an "it's harmless" - but standards were lower back then, and the experience of the SA and WA campaign pages a couple of months later was enough to persuade me to change my mind. Like I said, opinion pieces and primary sources are not "references". Orderinchaos 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 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) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that Victorian state election, 2006 includes information about the campaign in a neutral form, there's no need for this opinionated version (e.g. "the phoney campaign") to be retained. It's obvious that the authors were keeping track of the daily news as the campaign moved along and approached the election day, with a running commentary, and nobody interfered with the exercise as it progressed. However, the historical record of the election is and has been the main article. For all the keep !votes and hopes for "salvage", I'm still wondering, why not put relevant facts in that article? Mandsford 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After quite a bit of agonising over this one, it's come down to this. I think to say that the article needs "a bit" of work is a bit of an understatement; it was clear after reading what's under just a few of those interminable subheadings (and I did read the whole thing) that for this article to be even close to acceptable it needs a complete rewrite. The fact that well over half of the article doesn't even cover the formal campaign is an even more serious problem. Large parts of the article are well out-of-date, and the whole thing is afflicted with terrible POV. As such, I have to agree with Orderinchaos that this is unsalvageable and should go. Frickeg (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against a future recreation. Sometimes, when an article needs to be completely rewritten, it is appropriate to delete an article on an otherwise notable topic. This is one of those cases. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:38, 30 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) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dzubak

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

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

American dating coach. No evidence of substantial coverage. Only claim of notability is to have appeared on tv a few times. Fails WP:BIO. A few SPAs and suspected paid editors have been involved in creating these 'seduction community' type articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Harbinger. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 04:31, 23 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) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One single article on Google news, already in the article, is about him. WP:GNG requires multiple sources. The other cites are not reliable sources; the New York Press is nice to read, but it has marginal editorial content. I literally can not find a single other good source about him online. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Dating Coach" is a bogus field of achievement. Just like some things in the world are automatically WP-notable, if one's claim to 15 minutes is prowess with the ladies — that's automatically unnotable. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 30 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair (band)

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

Apart from being unreferenced, does not meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Technopat (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet criteria 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Dimaspivak (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aaron Sprinkle is individually notable. The band's first album received a fair amount of coverage and was nominated for a Grammy for Best Recording Package (see this). There's also a bio and review at Allmusic.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 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) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Their debut album received coverage in multiple publications, and a Grammy Award nomination. I added a couple of citations just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Harbinger

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

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

American dating coach. No evidence of substantial coverage. Only claim of notability is to have appeared on tv a few times. Fails WP:BIO. A few SPAs and suspected paid editors have been involved in creating these 'seduction community' type articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Harbinger. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a lot of press coverage for this person, some of which was removed because the original author of the article seemed to be inexperienced in the way they presented this personality (possible paid promo). However, this person is notable.20:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.146.237 (talk)

Comment Is anyone claiming that there's even a single source available with significant coverage about the subject that meets WP:BIO? --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 23 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) 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[[Category:Relisted AfD[reply]

debates|2010 July 29]]

Delete What sources there are seem to be blogs and such, and do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So-called "Dating Coaches" (a neologism if I've ever heard one) are non-notable per se. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 30 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. No argument was put forward to challenge the nomination and nobody has provided any evidence to suggest that the subject may be notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redstone Science Fiction

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

Non-notable online science fiction magazine lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 66,000 Ghits for "redstone science fiction" on 22 July 2010 MikeRay (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Those initial numbers are notoriously incorrect. If you go to the last page you will see that the total is only 177 and they lack substance. ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of coverage in reliable third-party sources. The number of Google hits is not relevant. - Dravecky (talk) 08:27, 23 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) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for something entirely web-based, the lack of web presence is very troubling, as is the extremely paltry Alexa rank of 1,773,456. Does not appear to pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

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

The article fringes on WP:CRYSTAL and it appears unlikely that significant sources will make this a valid split from 2010 Summer Youth Olympics in the short term. I suggest any content is merged to the parent article or the article is userfied at least until the event happens (14 August onwards). Fæ (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:22, 22 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) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Summer Youth Olympics are too new (the first ever edition starts in two and a half weeks) for us to know whether they will be notable enough to warrant having articles for each participating country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The stated view that the notability bar should be set very low for politicians is interesting, but we are working to WP's current standard and the consensus is that this does not meet it. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Beams

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

Non-notable minor political figure, with no reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article was previously prodded and deleted in 2008; it was subsequently restored to userspace and quickly moved back to mainspace earlier this month. A prod notice was removed with the claim that further sources had been added, but the only such source was the Socialist Equality Party's website. A Google News search yields nothing. Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I write tons of political biographies on the radical and anti-radical movement. I'd be very happy to see every Executive Secretary of the tiniest sect ruled to be notable per se because ultimately labor history is written about such people. I further believe politicians of all stripes should face the lowest of all notability bars for coverage since the presentation of neutral biographical information on Wikipedia represents a valuable public service. So, on the grounds of both office and status as an active politician, in my view this is an easy call. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure figure in an obscure party; no decent sources showing any sort of notability. Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no independent reliable sources have been provided. This is a general purpose encyclopedia not a guide to esoteric movements in left wing politics in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leader of a notable party (that alone is enough for german wikipedia to keep him) + many citations in google scholar + published at least "8 works in 10 publications in 2 languages and 70 library holdings" according to Worldcat + candidate in australian federal elections. See also what User Meltchn wrote on the discussion page. --Korcur (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with those individually, shall we? (1) Being the leader of an ultra-minor party is definitely not ground for notability - also, this is English Wikipedia not German, and as far as I can see there has been no AfD over there; (2) 49 citations in Google Scholar is not really "many", and none are particularly significant, (3) see WP:PROF, (4) not even close to being notable. He still fails WP:GNG because there's no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (and the World Socialist Web Site, which is Meltchn's main source, hardly qualifies as independent). Frickeg (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won´t find a german AfD, because its rules declare that every national leader of a notable party is also notable ("Nationaler Parteivorsitzender einer enzyklopädisch relevanten Partei"). And why are the citations in Google Scholar not significant? Because you say so? --Korcur (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our guidelines don't say that. And the Google Scholar sources don't appear significant in relation to the general notability guideline - the first couple are all on Socialist websites. If any of them can be used to show that he meets WP:PROF, please feel free. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline, the politician notability guideline and the notability guideline for authors. A Google search returns no significant coverage from independent sources, and while a Google News archive search returns a number of results, I can't find any results that aren't either about someone else or published by the World Socialist Web Site. -- Lear's Fool 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carrite raises interesting points, but the end result of the line of argument is just too far from accepted community consensus about biographies. This fails all of the relevant accepted notability standards: WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTH. So it is a clear delete for me.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orderinchaos 05:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venice giardini

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

The Venice Biennale entry covers this topic in greater detail and is far more accurate. This article is speculative and subjective on several issues and does not substantiate any claims with citations. Only reference is a link to a website with further inaccurate description of the subject. Traveleditor (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article clearly needs improvement, as described above, it does seem worthwhile to develop distinct articles on the place and its main event. I've edited the article to interwiky the Italian page and the Commons page. (It can also be de-orphaned by linking from the Venice Biennale page; I've refrained from doing so while this AfD is in progress.) AllyD (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD above. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hobbs

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

Not notable Refudiate (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — Refudiate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep A quick glance at the article shows that rather than being non-notable, Hobbs has an entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Suggest speedy close? AllyD (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AllyD. Edward321 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this Refudiate character? He nommed two different Chris Hobbs for deletion on the same day.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy was in AMM for Chrissakes, they don't come much more notable than that in the world of free improvised music. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Eagle

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

Article whose only sources are four right-wing, non-RS websites, and which gives no proof of the subject's notability. In fact, the creator and major contributor to the article is User: Bad Eagle, an apparent WP: SPA who only edits articles related to Bad Eagle and David Yeagley: [34], and who may be Yeagley himself. In fact, Yeagley's claim to be descended from Bad Eagle, which this article presents as fact, is quite questionable (see Talk: David A. Yeagley). Were it not for Yeagley, in my opinion, no one would be talking about Bad Eagle; Yeagley himself is only barely notable, and I don't think Bad Eagle is notable at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search through Google Books shows that the first hit is (predictably enough) Yeagley's book about his alleged ancestor. None of the other hits have anything to do with this Bad Eagle; according to Books and News searches, there appear to be several other Bad Eagles, at least one of whom (unlike this guy) actually had the title "Chief Bad Eagle". I can't find any non-Yeagley sources that would indicate that this Bad Eagle is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the Indigenous people project, but since it's their area I'd defer to them. I can imagine it's difficult to provide RS for people with an oral tradition. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 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, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is based on unreliable sourcing, all of it traceable to David Yeagley, and seems intended to promote Yeagley's non-notable nonprofit, the Bad Eagle Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadoop Hive

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

This article is written as a how-to, with no independent sources or valid coverage at all. Seems like an unremarkable piece of software, but moreover it is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Also, everything is hyperlinked, including text like "go to (some url)"; so this appears to be borderline WP:ADVERT. Further proof of advertising: Cloudera... has excellent training videos... — Timneu22 · talk 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some of the issues that you raised, and I hope that this will help you consider this article a legitimate entry. The technology is certainly not unremarkable, and is currently in use by many cutting-edge companies. I intend for this article to be expanded upon by others working with Hive, and have only laid the groundwork for someone to get a basic insight into Hive. Patrickmccoy · talk 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. "In order to install hive"... see WP:NOT#HOWTO, which was already mentioned. — Timneu22 · talk 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Removed Above Patrickmccoy · talk 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. No independent coverage or sources. — Timneu22 · talk 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look, I believe you're trying, but the article is just nowhere close to being a valid encyclopedia topic. I can't go over every sentence and tell you what to correct. (Here's one: Once configured, Hive provides a really easy to use and understand SQL-like interface.) There are grammatical problems, tone problems, advertising problems, but overall, you just haven't provided any sources for this. WP:N. — Timneu22 · talk 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadoop. Without WP:RS there can't be a standalone article. Suggest finding a source or three and summarize a single para. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't merge. The proposed merge target is inappropriate subject matter for this material. Hadoop is framework. Hive is product using the framework. If this material non-notable and promotional the proposed merge target would give wider exposure to the audience it seeks - that is a second bad reason to merge. Miami33139 (talk) 17:08, 26 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, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. This product would seem to be an independent product that just happens to be built on the Hadoop chassis, and as such there's nothing to merge to the main article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to EMD GT26CW-2. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GM GT26CW-2

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

content fork of EMD GT26CW-2 WuhWuzDat 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I'd say redirect one to the other, but I don't know which.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the locomotive building division of GM was EMD (now Electro-Motive Diesel), and all other EMD locomotive articles are titled "EMD foo", I would say that EMD GT26CW-2 should be the surviving article (hence this AfD discussion). WuhWuzDat 00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to 'GM' rather than 'EMD' due to research showing most builders (except GMD) having licenced their construction of locomotives from GM, not EMD. I referred this article to GM to reflect the 1970-1980's era of when these units were constructed. The only exception would be from the TCDD GT26CW-2's as those are directly licenced from EMD.

The reason most of these companies licenced GM rather than EMD would directly go to their diesel engines and generators as complete sets (GM didn't care if the bodystyle was copied as long as it had an engine and generator from them). Not only that, but GM also marketed the set for Marine & Driling use. It's somewhat of saying 'you got to go through the big brother to go to the little brother'...or something like that.

here's two sites I have reference about this:

[35]
[36]

• GT42CWR-MP (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- As both the "EMD___" and "GM___" articles show locomotives license built to this design as late as 2009, and EMD supplied the engines and generators in all of them, I would still say the EMD article should be the survivor, as EMD has not been a part of GM since 2005. In addition, all previous "GM" locomotive articles here are titled "EMD foo", "GMD foo" (for designs exclusively built by General Motors Diesel), "EMC foo" (for locomotives built by EMD's predecessor), or otherwise filed under licensee name, but NOT "GM foo". There is a STRONG precedent here, and I cannot see one persons opinion being enough to break this precedent. WuhWuzDat 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, neither of the 2 web pages "referenced" above say a single word about who licensed this design to the builders. I also note that the GM article is a direct copy/paste of the EMD article, without giving credit to all the authors involved in creating the original article over the last 34 months. WuhWuzDat 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, with various references, I hereby stand corrected by WuhWuzDat. I suggest GM GT26CW-2 should be linked to EMD GT26CW-2. And thank you for recorrecting my three articles I have contributed: GM G22 Series, GM G22C Series & GM GT22 Series. The main reason I linked those as GM rather than EMD was from the controversial Andre Kristopan's GM Locomotive Serial Number Page *[37] but notably the builder Equipamentos Villares S.A. has locomotives with EMD Order Numbers.

Once again, thanks for the corrections! (and yes your contribution to EMD locomotives was a welcoming need). • GT42CWR-MP (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to EMD GT26CW-2; just add in the article (also known as the GM...). —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curry Picking

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

Neologism not in general use. Internet search does not reveal any reliable references to supposed technique. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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