Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 1

< 31 May	2 June >

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. CBD 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer in 2011

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

This is a bundled nomination of all Roger Federer in year articles. These articles present game, set, and match statistics in excessive detail. Additionally, outside of the small number of articles created in this format, the community has generally not considered it necessary nor appropriate to regard athletes' year-by-year performances in this manner, even for truly record-setting examples like Babe Ruth in 1927, much less for every year in a notable athlete's career. The first of these articles created for another tennis player was just deleted on these grounds. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Years and years of consensus has been achieved here and yes i know tennis on wiki is incredibley indecisive and bickers alot but I think this would be a waste to delete it. Good twins (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all after merging any pertinent information to Roger Federer. Seems to be undue weight. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' There are enough third party reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These articles have been around for quite a while, and I see no reason to delete. The articles meet WP:GNG, have reliable sources, and are necessary for reference. The articles are not excessively detailed in statistics and such, they only list the games that Federer has played and their results. Of course, some of the information can be toned down a little to where only the essential details of his year-by-year results remain, and that can be done in time. But, there is no detail on games (like number of aces, serve percentage, return percentage, unforced errors, etc.) that would obviously be excessive. These articles can be improved per WP:NOT#STATS so that they are acceptable. And honestly, there is no real rush to delete these articles, as all they need is improvement. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at this discussion on the same sort Rafael Nadal in 2010.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010 where the first 8 years were nominated with no consensus. Federer won the Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year in four of the nominated years. Babe Ruth played a team sport. We have 1927 New York Yankees season and 110 other seasons in Category:New York Yankees seasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure – These article being around for awhile means little to me. I admit that there is a wealth of info and that the sources are very reliable. GNG says "topic has received significant coverage." Roger Federer fits GNG... not his junior years. I don't see the press talking in detail about every tournament Roger played in 2003. When you take all these year by year things as a whole it starts to look like someone is writing a book about the history of Roger Federer here on wikipedia. Things to think about while making a decision here: We have detailed info about the high and low temperatures and fog in Santa Monica, day by day, hour by hour and year by year. Should that be part of Wikipedia? Also, Federer has been the 'Man' for the last half decade but there are plenty of other players in the past who would warrant the same treatment... Fred Perry, Molla Mallory, Anthony Wilding, Blanche Hillyard, Margaret Court, Pancho Gonzales, etc... Are we prepared to have year by year itineraries of these folks as well? Because I might write them as long as the floodgates are open. I do tend to like things tighter from an information standpoint but some of these these articles are on the cusp at best. Maybe... maybe when a player is number one he could have a yearly breakdown page but Roger wasn't number one in 2003 or 2010, and having a separate Roger Federer junior page is way out there in non-notability-land imho. So in looking at it, from my vantage point, we have some iffy pages and some non-notable trivia pages. I know people get very attached to articles they've worked on (self included) and my "not sure" isn't a deciding vote here. I just want everyone to think this through as far as consequences when we look back 5 years from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it clearly passes GNG, and if the information was to be merged into the main article it would be stupidly large. This information is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and this format is the only way it realistically can be. Sellyme^Talk 03:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as well per Sellyme -- his main article would be ridiculously huge; also, the articles are sourced and there are enough third party reliable sources to pass GNG as stated above. on camera^(t) 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Junior years Even though these articles present in excessive detail, it doesn't mean they are unfixable. Clearly, they can easily meet GNG criteria. Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a similar article but featured. Soewinhan (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Roger Federer Junior years can "easily meet" GNG. That is simply trivia in an encyclopedia and sets a dangerous precedent for an influx of junior year articles for 100's of players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I overlooked these articles. WP:NTENNIS indicates that juniors year won't meet GNG. But starting from Early Career article, the rest can meet GNG because he has already been playing in famed tournaments as detailed in WP:NTENNIS. Soewinhan (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is why does Roger Federer merit these separate articles? Is it because he was number one in those years? Obviously not in all of them. Is it because he was number one for several years and therefore "all" his playing years become noteworthy? Djokavik in 2011 was deemed deletable so what makes "Roger Federer's early career" keep-able in comparison? I'm trying to get a handle on why we wouldn't have an article on say... "Leyton Hewitt in 2009" or "Andy Roddick in 2010?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Federer merits these articles not because he was number one in those years (which he was not in all), but because he is regarded as one of the best, if not the best, players of the sport. I would also argue that players who are generally considered to have a major influence on the development of tennis (which would include folks like Federer, Sampras, Connors, Borg, Lendl, John McEnroe, Laver, etc.) would merit articles covering as much depth of their careers as these articles cover Federer's career with. This guideline would be satisfactory to stop the creation of countless articles of this sort on less-renowned tennis players. Of course, there would have to be some sort of consensus at WP:TENNIS as to which players would be considered to have a major influence on the development of tennis, but that should bring about no major controversy. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Federer from 2003 onwards merits these articles, maybe not his junior years or early career because it may or may not pass the noteworthy aspect for those two articles. The 2003 season was his first slam year, which facilitated him becoming number one in 2004 after the Australian Open. I would say Djokovic deserves to have two articles made for his 2008 and 2011 seasons because he won slams in those years. The standard needs to be if you rise to or are number one in that year and/or win a slam in a year you should be able to make a season article on wikipedia for that player, which would be logical since sizing requirements.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of articles I would not agree with if I start thinking about it. And I'll bet the players needed to pass muster will create more controversy than one thinks. I can think of a couple dozen right off the top of my head (that's like 200-250 articles needed) and we if we use SWWWWWH's criteria there would be 100's of players and therefore thousands of year by year articles. It looks like all the Federer articles will pass muster here so in the coming months and years it will interesting to see what crop has sprung from this seeding and whether the wiki tennis community will become hypocritical when looking at great players from earlier eras. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think about 2010 Detroit Lions season which all team sports seems to have a people generally accept them. In tennis, we do not have teams, but players and they have seasons. So, you have to answer my question what's the difference between individuals having seasons and teams?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and a good point. But each member of the Detroit Lions doesn't have a year by year (or shouldn't imho). Nor do we have an article for each game of the Detroit Lions season from 1968. We instead have tournaments as our "teams" which we highly detail every single year. Heck a day-by-day article of a particular tournament is like having and inning-by-inning article in baseball or a quarter-by-quarter article in football. And we don't have an article like "Jerry Rice and his Pop Warner days." (God or at least I hope we don't). Teams and individuals are very different and while there are some correlations there are also big differences. The sad part is you chose the Detroit Lions... sort of our equivalent to Anna Kournikova (except not as good looking) :-). Every year I hope will be different for old Detroit but they continue to suck. Oh well that's another topic :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow that any singles player deserves a season article for GS wins and world #1 rankings, but no doubles player merits a season article. Sellyme^Talk

And just so we are clear. Are you also suggesting that, like Federer, if player X wins a Major in 2012 after having been on the tour awhile, we should also create an article for player X in 2011, player X in 2010, player X in 2009, player X the high school years, etc? And on the flip side we have had doubles teams win the coveted Grand Slam and been number one for several years. Surly they deserve year by year articles? I see no way that Federer deserves year by year articles and a doubles team like Navratilova/Shriver does not. There would need to be "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1981", "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1982", "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1983", etc... we could list them on the tennisproject to-do-list page. As I said from the beginning a couple of those Federer pages are iffy and some are quite out there... but a couple of them are simply trivia that are not notable and they really open the dam for a potential flood. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for the first year they hit #1 or win a GS and every year forwards should get an article, whereas anything before that should be xxxxx xxxxxxxxx's early career. With regards to doubles teams, I agree that some do deserve season articles, but my wording was horrific. In my opinion, doubles players need to achieve more to merit season articles.

How about if every player with an ATP World Tour/WTA Tour title win gets a xxxxx xxxxxxxxx's career record article encompassing full detail of every match they've played, with separation for any with significant achievements? I mean, this information will be widely sourced in any cases post-1980, and there's no real reason not to have them. Okay, I'm being very inclusive here, but really, it's information worth having. (See, this is why I support article sub-pages to expand on article information without being bloated) Sellyme^Talk 11:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree here with this being way too exclusive. In fact it won't work because "Novak Djokovic in 2011" has already been shown to be unworthy of wikipedia. And a career record for someone who wins a single tier3 event? Wow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Sellyme. For every period of time which meet GNS, there should be nothing preventing from creating an article here provided that new articles should not be redundant and are simply content forking of larger article which size is limited by WP:AS. Let's say for example, if one wants to create an article about Roger Federer in 2010 January (which meets GNS because he won Austria Open), then Roger Federer in 2010 must be oversized to the point that it clearly needs to be forked. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So, there is virtually no limits of depth in coverage. Correct me if anyone feels anything wrong about this. Soewinhan (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness! Now we are talking about monthly pages??? I better get my scuba gear ready. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think monthly pages are a bit overboard, because yearly pages are highly unlikely to need to be split into multiple articles in and of themselves. And Fyunck, I don't see why a simple list of results for a player of title calibre is that overboard. Maybe if it (the requirements) was/were upped to ATP World Tour 500 or above? Sellyme^Talk 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all someone has won is a tier3 or tier2 event their charts are gonna be mighty small to begin with... that should fit on a single page under their name. Sorry but I don't think the originators of wikipedia wanted it become a trivia outlet... I know I don't want it to be. But it appears I'm way in the minority on all things Roger Federer. That's ok though because most of us agree on most things so we're bound to disagree on occasion. This is one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you support every single match a player has been in to be listed on their main article? A lot of player articles are "too large" already. (Another reason I support sub-pages for article usage) Sellyme^Talk 05:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I'm saying every match a player has been in their entire career is useless trivia that doesn't belong here. That would belong in a book specifically about that player or perhaps the ATP/WTA archives of trivia. A player who wins a single tier 3 event in his or her career should have a single page that everything needed should fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not quite. See, we're talking only about ATP World Tour matches (Or the WTA equivalent). Now, participating in one of these matches qualifies a tennis played for an article. So how is it "useless trivia"? Look at it this way: Sure, it may be more suited in a book about that player or the WTA/ATP archives, but why not have it here as well, so people don't have to change sites? It's factual, notable, and informative, so it meets all criteria of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is rapidly arriving at a point where we need to decide whether to expand our horizons or keep concentrated on our standards now. I for one want Wikipedia to keep growing, until it can be used as a reference (poor wording, but you get the point) for almost anything, and although this information may seem trivial, that doesn't mean it isn't useful to the readers. If we look at the (admittedly vague) policies for article guidelines in general, it says to avoid things like Jane Smith's waffle breakfast of January 24, 1998, but it doesn't say why. Common sense will tell you that it's because (to be blunt), no-one gives a rat's ass about that (With the possible exception of Jane Smith). Now, it's obvious that a large amount of people would be interested in Federer's career record (Especially with the nifty coloured W/L columns to have a graphical representation of his form), so I honestly do not see a reason not to include it.

Don't take this as any kind of debate, but I really strongly feel that Wikipedia needs to broaden its horizons and attempt to grow continuously, not just slow down and become stagnant. This would be the first step. /rant Sellyme^Talk 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a "single page" on a player who has won a low level atp tourney is trivia. Heck they get an article a few paragraphs and charts. But that should be enough. And we only agree that their entire record is factual...it is not notable. Federer's career achievements are fine too. But, using your words, I don't think many people give a rats ass about the fact Roger is 1-0 against Julian Reister or every match he played as a junior. I also don't like seeing % used in most charts. That dumbs down our readers too much since it's already in the chart if they do some simple math. But that's another story. I think we've used enough bandwidth here so that everyone knows where we stand and why. We are not going to change each others minds on this item.

You're missing the point. I actually support the deletion of Federer's juniors page. It's ATP World Tour matches that I think aren't "useless trivia", and ATP World Tour matches that people will be interested in. And I, for one, went "Oh cool, Reister made the third round of a GS. Not bad for world number 165."

I'll be honest. I'm not too keen to create new articles about each individual season, but I think it has to (or at least should)be somewhere. I'd much prefer them to be in a format such as Roger Federer/2010 season, but as that is never going to happen and including it in the main article is just ludicrous, this is the best option. Sellyme^Talk 09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about creating month pages. There won't be substantial contents to do so. I was referring to a general case only when yearly pages are oversized. Soewinhan (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be near impossible until we reach a point where every venue for a tournament has a large enough grounds that they can go through a round every day, thus allowing 8 tournaments a month as opposed to four. If we were to have an article for just the four tournaments a month a player can participate in (Which is normally only 2, at best 3, due to fatigue issues), then each match would have to have an in-depth report, which would be extending GNG to the extreme. Even at 8 enter-able tournaments a month it would be a bit ambitious.

However, that said, if a player's season summary article is truly that incredibly action-packed and informative, then in theory, yes, it should be split. Sellyme^Talk 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's common practice to split large articles into smaller ones and simply summarise the child articles in the parent one. If all this info was to be merged into the the Roger Federer article, it would be in violation of WP:LENGTH and would probably have to lose it's GA status. Merging these articles would be a net negative for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gepida

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

A "Self-declined WP:A7". There is no doubt that this company WP:EXISTS, but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of this bicycle manufacturer. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fleshed the article out a little and added a 3rd-party ref. PamD (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in all those bike magazines. They have scans on their web site of all the articles. Clever. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be enough coverage at http://www.gepida.hu/eng-hun/company-intruduction/media/eng_pr/ to meet WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Delta Airlines#Incidents and accidents. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 2284

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

Contested prod. Landing incident which has only received short-term news coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). It is very fortunate that the fire did not lead to any casualties or hull loss, but mishaps like this are fairly common compared to the kind of incident which justify an article. The incident does not meet any of the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH for being mentioned in the corresponding airline/airport/aircraft article either. Also, the accuracy of the article seems off, the article mentions no tail number (with which the age could be determined exactly) but "it has been in service for approximately 5-10 years." is unlikely considering that the MD-80 went out of production in 1999. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all relevant info into the articles on the aircraft type, airline and airport concerned, then redirect to Delta Airlines#Incidents and accidents. Aircraft concerned was N941DL, damage is described as "substantial" so it is worth a mention. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mjroots. Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH on its own, but a notable event in Delta's history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mjroots.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, dont think it is notable for a mention anywhere else either.MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - brake overheat events are quite commonplace within aviation; just not notable, nor serious enough to warrant mentioning anywhere - let alone to have its own article. YSSYguy (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brake overheats are common, agreed. Overheats that cause a fire and substantially damage the airframe are less common. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, but I don't think it can have been a serious fire if it was extinguished in a minute and everyone was evacuated over the wing centre-section (i.e. near the seat of the fire) ~~via the ventral air stair~~ via the LH rear emergency slide. The term "substantial damage" covers just about anything more than a simple dent. YSSYguy (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree, the article should be deleted, but moved to the Delta Air Lines page. But then shouldn't we do the same thing to United Airlines Flight 497? 161.130.178.7 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article injured people and it claimed substantial damage to the plane.Springyboy (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't a serious accident. I'm not saying that we should get rid of all this information on Wikipedia. I'm just saying that this incident doesn't need a page. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have many problems now, as I have fixed it up as their is a tail number and the age of the plane is 22 years. There could've been a problem to the plane and it now meets WP:AIRCRASH on its own. Springyboy (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not have many problems now, but the main problem is that it is about an event that runs foul of NOTNEWS, does not in fact meet AIRCRASH and is too run-of-the-mill to bother with recording for posterity. YSSYguy (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator didn't withdraw but AfD is overdue and consensus is clear. (NAC) - frankie (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1+1 (song)

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

For now, this article fails WP:NSONGS. It hasn't charted nor won any awards. Plus, it is not notable enough just because it was performed on time. If it was, several songs like Soda Pop or I Will be There by Britney Spears would have its own articles. Sauloviegas (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a confirmed promotional single. It was given release it North America this week and will most likely chart on Wednesday. calvin999 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ It will debut in the US this Thursday. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My love is love (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we know why you want this to be kept? Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wait until Thursday to see if Keep – its charted. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fully fledged single. It's a promo single. calvin999 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes but still, it doesn't pass the criteria for notability per WP:NSONGS. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete - Adabow has been generous enough to begin a draft for this page... So we can edit there, delete this, and than move the page back if it grows relevancy (charting and more reception). Theuhohreo (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As predicted, the song charted. Why this is still up for discussion, I'll never know! Theuhohreo (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sauloviegas and Ozurbanmusic. Right now, the song fails the notability criteria. Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Keep the song now passes WP:NSONGS. Novice7 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not (well, maybe weak keep), but I am kinda over these ridiculous AfDs. Only Girl (In the World), Halo and The Edge of Glory (I could probably dig up countless others) have all been sent to AfD, and then either kept or deleted and later recreated. It's ludicrous to start an AfD on the premise that "it hasn't charted yet". After a few days these songs do actually chart, and there are numerous songs that are notable due to other coverage. It would be incredibly stupid for every song that charts to be documented on WP, but for every article about a song that does not chart to be deleted. Too many editors misinterpret WP:NSONGS. Anyway, that's my rant. Continue. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cosign - very good point Adabow. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If delete, then also delete 1+1 (song)/version 1 (side-effect of a history-merge). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 46.217.63.160 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — 46.217.63.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Even if the song never charts, the current article demonstrates that significant coverage exists for this track in multiple reliable sources (e.g. MTV, AOL, Pitchfork. Additional coverage not already referenced in the article includes [1][2][3][4]; and there are also non-trivial write-ups focusing on the live performance). Subject passes WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The song doesn't pass the criteria for notability per WP:NSONGS. VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album) untilKeep it passes NSONGS. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 20:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside" (the song meets WP:GNG), "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This suggests a "reasonably detailed" song article is one that goes beyond a stub - a standard which appears to have already been met. Gongshow ^Talk 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This will all come to an end, because "1+1" has charted on the Hot 100 at number 57! As expected, the song charted and Adabow's point (above) just proves to be even more true... Maybe sometimes people should actually take into account the popularity of the artist and allow the page to stay until that weeks charts come in before AfD-ing everything... Theuhohreo (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the four headlines above are more than enough to stop this on its tracks - frankie (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, it has charted and may go even higher than 57. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It charted, so close this.77.29.82.202 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting song. RatiziAngelou^contribs 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It takes common sense to figure out the song was going to chart...the artist's notability should have been enough to warrant a pause before putting the article for deletion...it has charted now - as anyone could have predicted - and has been publicised extensively... JonathanLGardner (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Why would this discussion be included on any other related articles... This is buffoonery at it's best. The song has charted and was critically acclaimed, so why is this even here anymore??? Theuhohreo (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This is ridiculous. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, with the work you put in and the work of other users, this article sustains more information than some of the GA's on here! Theuhohreo (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jimee. And it was not even necessary to take this to AFD as we all knew that it would chart. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Bettridge

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

An account asserting they are the subject is requesting deletion and claiming the article is detrimental to his career and that he no longer wants a wikipedia BLP. There is also only minimal notability and limited external reliable sources that focus on the subject. This is a procedural nomination to complete the users attempted formatting and I personally am currently undecided. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is of limited notability and the sourced version of the article, although neutral, is obviously causing the subject distress. As the subject has himself expressed a desire to have the article deleted, and content is minimal, I think it would be best to comply in this case. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The account claiming to be the article subject is the creator of the article, and the article has stood for several years. The article does not appear to violate any Wikipedia content policies, make disparaging references to the subject, or intrusively disclose personal/private information. The subject appears to meet the pertinent SNG. The content he's objecting to now appears to be nothing more than a depeacocked version of content the subject added to the article himself. In this context, the subject's claim of distress and "negitive" [sic] impact should carry reduced weight. This appears to be a subject complaining that he can't control his Wikipedia article and frame it to promote his current projects, and there's no reason to cave in to his demand. He's got access to Facebook, Twitter, etc and is already using them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:SNG are you suggesting he leaps over - which is the main one here Wikipedia:Notability (sports) ? As far as the request goes for the subject goes, we do not have OTRS confirmation for that, is a good faith position in regard to that request. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The motorsports section of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is very poorly written as it has been written exclusively from an American domestic viewpoint. Applying it to series outside NASCAR and Indycar requires interpretation. The relevant wikiproject has been discussing the issue and consensus is yet to be achieved. That having been said, the quality of results leads me to believe the subject fails notability regardless. --Falcadore (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I was simply taking the descriptions by others editors like "minimal notability" and "limited notability" at face value; my experience has been that the phrasing indicates subject technically passes an SNG, though GNG coverage hasn't been specified. If he fails the SNG, then my argument isn't very relevant. I just don't think it's appropriate to accede to the wishes of any article subject who demands that their entry be deleted if they can't control its content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently his notability is minimal and there appears to be little reporting specifically about him and his life. A few races in what looks to be a a lesser level of championship. Little chance of creating any decent reliably cited life story. No objection after deletion to the creation of a redirect to his main notability which appears to be 2008 Australian Drivers' Championship or to a recreation if his notability increases. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero hits in google.news or google.books except for wikipedia mirrors. the two current "sources" in the article seem far from "significant coverage" or "reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither of the cited sources actually discusses Bettridge- they are both simply appearances of his name on a list. My search didn't yield any better sources. With no reliable sources writing about him, there is nothing we can use to create a useful article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability here. There are a lot of drivers at his level, and he does not stand out from the crowd. Indeed, you could say on the evidence of Google that nobody is much interested in him apart from Mr Bettridge himself. --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not meet WP:GNG as there is precious little coverage in reliable sources. As for meeting WP:NSPORT, and acknowleding that the criteria for motorsports is not well-developed, he does not make the grade as a race car driver. Going by the general guidance that an athlete is notable when competing at the highest level of his sport, the racing series which he competes are generally considered entry level and far from the top level of motorsport. This analysis stands regardless of the subject's desire with respect to the existence of an article about him in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find the notion that the innocuous factual information in this article is harmful to the subject to be quite ludicrous. I know little about auto racing, so I will take the other editors at their word when they say that he was a minor non-notable sports figure. Once strong notability standards are developed for international drivers the issue of undeleting/recreating this article can be taken up. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I typed his name into a search engine and came back with unreliable sources for birth date such as AskJeeves encyclopedia. Second of all, I suppose if the subject wants his entry to vanish, so be it. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the Australian Drivers' Championship is Australia's premier open wheel motor racing series, Bettridge has not driven a full season, and even then did not race in the outright division. That the subject of the article wishes the subject to be deleted is immaterial to the discussion. His achievements in domestic Australian motor racing do fail the notability test, and in truth the article should have been deleted when the subject created his Wiki-auto-biography. --Falcadore (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GIANTmicrobes

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

Doesn't seem to meet general notability guidelines. --Technopat (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a good number of articles about GIANTmicrobes in reliable third-party sources. They need to be added to the article (which I can take care of later when I'm not editing from a mobile device). LaMenta3 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of reliable sources mentioned on the about page: http://www.giantmicrobes.com/us/content/about.html and I'm sure they'll get added to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Disavian and add the sources there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of their incredible cuteness ;-) Voyager640 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep somewhat like an ad. Requires cleanup. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Business making plush toys shaped like germs. This seems to have attracted enough notice to get to notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo arcade games

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

Completely unneccessary. There's already a page called List of products published by Nintendo. Logan The Master (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is already at List of products published by Nintendo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the parent article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I already said this, but the page is freaking pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan The Master (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish football champions

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

No source since Feb 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisman Yanko (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep are you challenging that it is sourceable? have you tried, per WP:BEFORE? (note I have removed a speedy G10 template on the page as a duplicate. ) DGG (alternate account) (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per DGG. AfD is not for cleanup, this is quite clearly a notable list on a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article isn't in the best shape at the moment, but the topic itself is worthy of a page in notability terms. Who knows, maybe someday this could be a featured list, like some other similar pages. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a list on an obviously notable subject, the lack of sources is not a reason for deleting here. Possibly qualifies as a speedy keep under criterion 2.5. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Giant Snowman 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Keep. An article that needs improving, not deleting. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is a problem with the sources, it can be tagged accordingly. That's no reason to delete the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is informative enough in its current state, and could be improved further using the models of some other lists in the national football champions category. This also prompts the idea of creating more lists on that topic; maybe I'll go on and create one for the champions of my country. The shortage of sources cited isn't an irresolvable problem, because they can be supplied easily, and even without them the information looks trustworthy. Let's keep this article and deal with its demerits by means of regular editing. --Theurgist (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Newt Gingrich

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

The article appears to exist only as a vehicle for a political campaign's messaging and viewpoints. The article is non-neutral at its core, and provides undue coverage to a declared Presidential (US) candidate. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an acceptable fork of Newt Gingrich as it easily meets WP:GNG and there is a huge precedent for "Political positions of..." articles. If there are neutrality issues, I don't see that any attempt was made on the talk page to rectify them. Location (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the originator of this page, created because it was starting to take up too much space in Newt Gingrich. The article is a vehicle for all relevant perspectives on Gingrich's public record, pro and con, and the article contains both. Most 2008 U.S. presidential candidates were the subject of such pages, which is why I thought to create this one. And more 2012 candidates should have them. Stargat (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was a transformational Speaker of the House of Representatives, well-known for his intellect, as well as evolving viewpoints on political issues. His views are extremely well-sourced, as is the article. A fork here is inevitable with such a historical and mercurial figure. It's a decent article. Disclosure: I am a Democrat. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On a practical level, Newt Gingrich is already a fairly long article so it makes sense to have fork sections like this. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A legitimate fork. Per Location, there is much precedent for such articles. No grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at all costs This article has a lot of detail about Newt's political positions that simply could not be crammed into the main article for lack of space. I think it's ridiculous that anyone would even seriously consider deleting all this info just when the American people need all the info they can get about possible Presidential candidates. I suggest keeping the article and ending this whole debate. And no, I'm not one of his supporters, but I do want all this info to be easily available to everyone in the USA. (Also, has anyone noticed that the original AfD request was politically motivated?) -- An American ultranationalist 67.169.177.176 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd think that those who oppose him would want his views known no less than those who support him, assuming they oppose him for reasons actually related to his positions. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think not. When I was studying for the bar examination, the best advice I got was not to love them or hate them ("them" being ficticious parties). Whether I like Newt matters not. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what you thought my point was, but what I was trying to say was that it doesn't make sense to assume that only a pro-Gingrich POV could motivate such an article. It reminds me of the recent Stephen Harper AFD, in which the delete !voters tried to characterize articles on the policy positions of the Harper administration as political advertising simply for describing those positions. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Political position of X person articles are valid topic. If there is any POV dispute, that should be edited to make it NPOV, that is not a reason for deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Catalonia

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

non-existent separatist concept Belchman (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admittedly don't know very much about the Iberian Peninsula, and while the actual sources on the page could use some help, the principality seems adequately existent and sourcable. It's in the Catholic Encyclopedia for example. Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Unless you'd care to back up your claim that the principality did not exist. This seems like a typical case of someone transferring present political conflicts into the past.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search turns up a decent amount of discussion of the concept--so I think it probably does exist. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It definitely exists. The history of the region goes far back beyond separatist concepts. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvino D'Armate

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

Nominate and comment I did a Google search for his name and it came up with 7,600 pages - not a large amount by Google standards, but quite respectable. However, a lot of websites take their information from Wikipedia, and we certainly don't want to further spread seemingly false information.

The sources listed showing he is the inventor are not reliable sources. However, the information is there on many websites - none of them seem reliable either, but it seems to be quite widely believed that there was a possibility he invented the eyeglasses. This seems to me a tricky one - if it is widely thought that he was the inventor (and thus people would search for him), then it seems best that he has an article so people can find out why it was previously thought that he was the inventor, and what the truth is. However, if he wasn't the inventor, does he meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines?

It survived a deletion attempt in 2004, but as that was in the early days of Wikipedia, I don't think that shows it is popularly supported.

I have nominated it as User:Cwkmail asked me for help in trying to delete this, but I have no clear opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: explain and de-bunk the claims that he was the inventor. Deleting the article would leave a vacuum which would be filled with another article claiming he was the inventor. PamD (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is widely touted as the inventor wearable eyeglasses. Whether that is actually true or not is irrelevant from the point of view of notability, as there is quite wide coverage (not Wikipedia mirrors). -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. His role in the invention may be a myth, but the amount of sources discussing it indicates it's a notable myth. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your comments, good points made. Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Alan Worth

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

Completing nomination for IP. Reason stated on talk page is:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Church organist and salesman whose "discography" consists of private label, non-notable recordings. Being a student of a notable person does not make the student himself notable. Originator has previous AfDs. 68.175.98.76 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject had made national tours under a major management house (Columbia Artists Management), has at least four recordings with three re-issued or still in print, and designed and/or oversaw installation or major instruments in the United States. These criteria would appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Nominator for AfD is anonymous? Mariepr (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet looked into the notability of this subject, but I must point out that the AfD nominator is no more anonymous than you are - if anything, less so, as we know the nominator's IP address. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on note by 68/175.98.76 "Originator has previous AfDs". What does a "previous AfD" have to do with the main discussion - mainly does Ted Alan Worth meet notability standards or not. Mariepr (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Manship

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY. He has never played professionally at any of his previous clubs. Wrombo (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualDubMod

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualDubMod, although aging, is still an important and well known video editing tool. It's used by many and definitely needs an article on Wikipedia. The article may need more references, but they can be easily found on the net, and some are already there. I'm opposed to deletion. Jaho (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When googling for virtualdubmod vs virtualdub, the article on VirtualDubMod was the first hit, proving its relevance—at least for me. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Wikipedia being the 1st google hit generally proves the lack of notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Wikipedia seems to be the first google hit for just about everything notable. Unless YMV, for instance, try this and this :-) - DVdm (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 05:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War over Water

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

The page might fail on notability, and is probably a result of WP:OR, even though some facts are based on real events of political dispute. This event was not a "war", but barely an armed conflict (where there any casualties?) - part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus it is a WP:UNDUE. The article is most probably failing the requirements WP:EVENT as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep—the article isn't great, I admit. However, it's a major part of both Israeli and Syrian history, and is still relevant today. The War over Water is a common title given to this topic, which was not actually a war but a series of military and political engagements. This was one of the major events leading up to the Six-Day War, and consisted of numerous notable border skirmishes between Israel and Syria. To give an idea of what the article should be like, look at the section titles here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have a number of sources pertaining to the subject and will try to expand the article in the coming weeks (can't promise anything though). One of the sources by the way, an encyclopedia on Israeli history, dedicates an entire page to the War over Water (and another one for the background), compared to this topic which gets barely half a page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ynhockey above on notability grounds, despite its relative poor current quality to include these. Its notability predates Israel's founding and any particular shooting that the title term war might imply in that context; it encompasses competing national, political and military disputes over the relatively scarce regional water resources, their utilization by riparian states, and the differences between those available resources and the boundaries since claimed, derived, occupied and disputed to this day. Original Zionist Organization claims to the land, specifically including the majority of regional water resources, date to one of the earliest official statements presented internationally at Paris in 1919 [5]. Later unilateral Israeli utilization caused major political problems between the US and the UN, as indicated here, here, and here, and led to a major diplomatic attempt to resolve the issues in the 1950s. Water remained very much an issue until resolved with Jordan, and remains a final status issue with the Palestinians, and an issue with Lebanon. It is indeed very notable, and part of wider issues in its own right. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I must note that the verifable information, contained in this page, is extensively discussed in Water politics in the Jordan River basin. This article, however makes the politics article into a "War over Water" (which seems a WP:OR), with a campainbox of severe conflict event, while no sources indicate a WP:EVENT with such name.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carta's Atlas of Israel, Second Decade, p. 25.

The article does refer to a specific series of battles, not the overall history of water conflicts in the region. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks to me like this has certainly received non-trivial reliable source coverage. [6][7] Qrsdogg (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Ynhockey mentions a page, but there are in fact entire books dedicated to the subject (one such book, with said title, is mentioned here), plus countless articles (Here's one). The name is also in common use, most certainly in Israel. This 20-year-long series of events represents not isolated incidents but rather an escalating conflict that eventually culminated in the 1967 war. The article undoubtedly requires attention but it is very much notable. Poliocretes (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject appears to have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources and as such is likely to be notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article talks about several skirmishes and limited military operations in Israel's northern border. It's an important event for the politics and history of the region, and certainly should be improved and expanded.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Epsilon

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

Non-notable fraternity. Moray An Par (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:N. The article has a serious need for references, I searched online for references and couldn't find literally anything except the group's website. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More discussion is needed in order to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen I'm not sure this should have been kept last time around (or, at least, I'm surprised to read some of the opinions expressed). I can't find any reliable sources covering it in any significant detail (or, really, any detail at all). The GNews archive results referenced in the last AfD don't include anything like actual coverage of this organization, or, erm, coverage of this actual organization, as far as I can tell, and I'm not getting the "plainly notable" assertions present there, either. Others searching for references should be very careful to review the results Google uncovers to make sure they are actually about the organization described in this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, the links to information provided in the previous nomination actually pertain to a different organization with the same name. Moray An Par (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - Oh, goody, back to the ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK fraternity and sorority challenges with brilliantly expressed rationale "Non-notable fraternity." Is the nominator familiar with the previous problems we had with the previous onslaught of ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK nominations? Did the nominator observe WP:BEFORE? Does the nominator have more than 3 words to say about why this article should be removed from Wikipedia instead of being tagged for improvement? Carrite (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion by way of an actual reason to keep the article? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNOWBALL we must first determine if this is even worth doing any improvement. If you did do researching on the topic, you can find that this article does not meet WP:SNG, in which case it seems that you didn't. Voting for keeping it because of what you see as a poorly written nomination rather than actually researching on it is not a valid argument. IMHO, it's a blatant expression of how bureaucracy can run counter building consensus. Moray An Par (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put more work into asking if the nominator followed WP:BEFORE than the nominator did in explaining why this article merits deletion. Somehow there is a mentality that nominations don't need to have research or effort behind them, but defenses do. After the abusive, automation-assisted attack of over 100 ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternities and sororities (see the AN/I archives for details), you're damned right that I'm gonna be fussy and bitchy about somebody rolling out a zero effort nomination of an ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternity or sorority. And no, I'm not gonna do five minutes of research to defend from a five second nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up on this a bit more, because your attitude and reaction is mystifying to me.

The article has been tagged for improvement since 2008. I think that's why it "should be removed instead of being tagged for improvement."
"Non-notable" is a very clear explanation of the reason for deletion. The nominator also makes clear in followup comments that he's done some research, as do two other delete votes (myself and SwisterTwister). You make clear from your own comments that not only have you not done any research to back up your position, you are unwilling to do so. As such, I am stumped as to why you think anybody, let alone an administrator reviewing this discussion, should ascribe any weight or merit to your opinion, and I am further stumped as to why you think the efforts you've put in to not supplying a keep rationale somehow trump somebody at least giving a rationale for deletion.
WP:BURDEN -- which is Wikipedia policy -- places the burden on the person adding or arguing for the inclusion of content to find sourcing for that content. I am sorry you disagree with this "mentality" but, again, that is Wikipedia policy. Find some sourcing to back up your keep contentions, and I will happily change my vote.

The past mass-deletion issue is basically irrelevant. Its only similarity is that it affected the same topic, but as long as this is not part of another mass-deletion issue, I fail to see how bringing that up makes your case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, despite some heroic efforts to find an notability establishing source. Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Cookes

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

Notability issues. Google search leads in a circle. Most info about group exists on YouTube and their personal page. Page has also been orphaned since 2009 Canyouhearmenow 10:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:V or WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.singingcookes.com/biography.html and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fully convinced it is a copyvio; looking into this now.--SPhilbrick T 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had to remove most of the article's text as it was copied from an old archive of their bio.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - NortyNort is right, but this is the 12 June 2006 version, supporting the claim of copyvio.--SPhilbrick T 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a non copyvio version I could revert to. However, there is no sourcing extant and right now no indication of notability. Dloh cierekim 21:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the Singing News chart position is verifiable, I don't presently see sufficient notability. As the current sourcing is from the subject. Willing to consider the merits of any sourcing that might save this. Dloh cierekim 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - As the copyvio has been removed leaving a stub, I've stricken my speedy delete !vote. The Singing Cookes have been covered in books: Country music culture: from hard times to Heaven, Encyclopedia of American gospel music, The Old time Herald. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, the publications you have listed are a great reference material, however, the "Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music" is a publication that the people who are included write their own entry. It is much like one of the Who's Who in American and you can pretty much write what you want as long as you pay the fee for the inclusion. The "Country Music Culture" looks more like a timeline of their performance than history of the group. I am still having a problem showing or agreeing to WP:Notability. I am familiar with this group's history and they are more of a regional act than per se the national brand. I am open for someone to show me the notability factor here to save this article. --Canyouhearmenow 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Canyouhearmenow. Dloh cierekim 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have any documentation of paid inclusion for the Encyclopedia of American gospel music? -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Encyclopedia of American gospel music is published by Routledge, a reputable publisher. As far as I can tell, the book itself is widely held in libraries. Unless there is evidence that one pays to be listed in that book, then I am inclined to accept it as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment There is a review of McNeil that states, "McNeil's title will likely become the definitive work on the subject and fills a gap in a field that has had only sporadic reference documentation " This cite is probably what I need to switch to Keep, as I see inclusion in a relevant print encyclopedia as prima facie evidence of notability. Awaiting further discussion. Dloh cierekim 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Of course, google does not want me to see much of this book, but the relevant paper article was authored by Ivan M Tribe. The paper article above has multiple italicized cites. A regional group, included in an encyclopedia, would still cross the bar to safely beach itself on notability's happy shore. Dloh cierekim 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just called Routledge Publishing to inquire as to this publication. They did in fact confirm that at the time of print it was a pay for inclusion publication but it has not been published since 2005. There are no plans to publish or reprint it again. The inclusions into the book were of a technical merit and group staging moreover than information on the groups themselves. The information was to substantiate the history of Gospel music and the behind the scenes kind of info. Although I know that it does not have to be a continually published or printed encyclopedia of sorts to maintain notability status, I just wanted to throw that tid-bit out there. So, with that being said, there is no reference or way to show that this is a pay to print publication and if everyone feels it meets WP:Notability guidelines then I will have no other choice but to go with the flow of traffic here. I am still feeling that this group does not meet a preponderance of what is notability. But, I will go with the flow should everyone decide to keep the article. One must also realize also that the materials that we are looking at for saving this article is the material that is goign to be needed to build the article. Does anyone feel there is enough material contained in what has been found to build a comprehensive article? Input please? --Canyouhearmenow 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux-- is the encyclopedia really an encyclopedia or vanity press. It feels like an encyclopedia to an extent, but the Cookes's article takes a familiar tone, using the kids' first names. As much as I want to, I can't quite bring myself to change to "keep." We'll see what else surfaces. We'll see how the closing admins views this. Time permitting, I can look more closely at the publication data. Dloh cierekim 13:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, this has been my dilemma all along. I knew about the periodical, but being an entertainment historian we give very little credence to its value because we know that the artists are the ones who write what is included or the periodical takes it from what the artists have written in other places. It is not in my opinion a reliable third party. However, since the periodical ended and will not be reprinted, one cannot make an argument about its validity because little is written about the periodical and how it gleans its information. The bottom line is; after looking at even the articles that are written in these periodicals, it still gives little credence to the subjects notability and even fewer sources to build a comprehensive article upon. I still feel this article should be deleted. Canyouhearmenow 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the closing admin, I'd probably close it as "no consensus". But I leave it to those who work here. That's why they get the big salaries and company cars <cough />. Right now, we have one "keep," one certain "delete," and one ambiguous, hand wringing delete. I'm looking forward to see how it sorts out. Dloh cierekim 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the controversy surrounding "Routledge Publishing", because I'm involved in another deletion process and one of this company's Who's Who books is one of the citations for that (other) article. I used to be regularly sent letters from a Marquis Who's Who company asking me to submit or edit entries about myself for their various books. I gradually discovered their books are vanity books (as this Forbes article more or less confirms http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0308/063.html). Marquis did, in fact, publish my (auto)biographical entry without requiring me to buy a copy of their book. They merely urged me to buy; they never insisted. I suspect this is how many vanity Who's Who publishers work. Note also that: 1) Marquis Who's Who books list famous as well as obscure persons so as to appear legitimate (if they didn't appear legitimate, they couldn't sell any copies), and that 2) Marquis Who's Who books are generally kept in libraries. (I checked the first one that appeared with me in it at the local university library, and when I asked the librarian where to find it, she groaned. Apparently, she knew all about it.) TheScotch (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheScotch, that is the same with the publication in question now. It's information is gleaned the same way as the Who's Who series. Artists are asked to submit their stories and bio materials. Essentially allowing them to write their own press without having a third party to verify accuracy. This is where I have an issue that this periodical should not be allowed for consideration for verifiability because it would fail Wikipedia's rules for reliable third party sourcing. This particular periodical is a behind the scene of technics and stories written by the artists or groups. The artists were then encouraged to buy the publications in order to boost popularity or promotional tear sheets. Hence the reason I have a problem with these particular publications being used to show notability for this group. This publication is not being printed any longer more less because it probably did not sell enough copies to the artists that were included. That is the history of this type of publication. Without this publication being used, this group would fail WP:V or WP:GNG. I am waiting for the final decision to see where this goes. --Canyouhearmenow 11:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be interesting. I'm still for deletion. Dloh cierekim 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Del - Given the issue with paid inclusion for the Encyclopedia of American gospel music, I've reconsidered my position. For me, it was that source that established notability with the others supporting it; the keystone if you will. Without it, I can't see notability being established, even with the other sources I found. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firas Mazloum

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

"One of the most famous inventors in the world". But little evidence is offered to support this claim. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Analytics Platform

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

An article on what is possibly a non-notable data mining service, apparently authored by those with close links to the company providing it. All references are to primary sources, many of which don't discuss the subject in any depth (or at all). Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any non-trivial 3rd party coverage of this application. Most of the hits I see are about a company called Kontagent that does something similar. PeopleBrowsr apparently is notable, so this may merit a mention on their page. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Cricket League

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

Non-notable cricket league. Involves Indian celebrities, not played to a high enough standard to indicate notability per WP:CRIN. Outside of India it will get little coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree that currently the league is unfficial and not very notable and involves only celebrities.

But considering that this is in India there is always the chance of the organizers involving cricketers in the league, to increase attention and attraction. So, we have to have this article ready for such situation also. We just cannot create the article then and dig out all past details.

Also, I don not think that not much interest outside India is a criterion. Afterall, test cricket is played by 10 out of the 220 odd nations in the world. So, cricket itself do not have much interest in the whole world. Again, who else is interested in leagues run in Zimbabwe, Kenya and all, even though official ? Also, there are 1000s of articles on Indian topics which do not draw any interestby people outside. Same is the case with articles from any country.

If your main concern is the categories, we can discuss on removing some categories and keep only the acceptable ones for the time being. Our intention should not be to delete articles. but how to improve them. But, I strongly oppose deleting the article beacause there is lot of interest shown to this event by the film lovers in India, which itself will runs into billions of people. There is also going to be a TV coverage of this tournament. This league will get more TV viewers than an Ashes series, because this is held in India.

One more point. Indian Cricket League was also unofficial, it is now defunct also. Still it holds all the categories and have a valid article in Wikipedia.
Anish Viswa 01:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable cricket league, fails WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this delete !vote is from the nominator. To AssociateAffiliate, it is common practice in AfDs for the nominator's not to make a !vote like this, although I understand it was made in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Jenks24, I'll cross out my delete. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot agree to deletion of article. The categories related to cricket can be removed and can be kept to Entertainment in India section. There is no rule that celebrities cannot play cricket, nor all cricket should have professionals playing. There is a lot of interest for this event in India.
Anish Viswa 12:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the same sort of principle as the long running Soccer Six tournament in England, and, to my knowledge, that doesn't have an article. The players may be notable, but notability is not inheritable. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Players are very notable. They are big superstars. The tournament is also notable and much expected. Please do not compare with some soccer tournament is a small country like England. Unofficial tournaments like Hong Kong International Cricket Sixes have articles. We removed all categories related to cricket from the article. So WP:CRIN is no longer applicable to this article. Instead of asking to delete the article (which adds no value), it will be great if you can provide your valuable suggestions to improve/modify the article and keep the article here. Thank you for the support.
Anish Viswa 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've made your point, you don't need to keep making it. The original reason for nomination isn't quite accurate, but that doesn't make the deletion any less valid. This is an almost completely non-notable event. The comparison with the Soccer Six tournament in England is perfectly valid. That is a small tournament for celebrities that gets some coverage in English media, but mostly none elsewhere. This is a small tournament for celebrities that gets some coverage in Indian media but mostly none elsewhere. It's a joke of an event, a jolly for some celebrity friends. Not everything done by celebrities is important. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is by WP:CRIN and WP:ATH a non-notable cricket event; however notable the "celebrities" are for other deeds, they are not notable for cricket or participation in this. If some of these people are interested in cricket or even in playing cricket, then that might make a note within their own articles, but it does not make their cricket notable. Johnlp (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I seriously doubt this league would get anywhere near viewing figures for the Ashes, even if it did that doesn't mean it is notable. Also, these actors might be "superstars" in India, but as already pointed out, it doesn't make their cricket or this tournament notable. There are no notable domestic leagues in Kenya, but in Zimbabwes case, it is a full member, therefore its domestic leagues are notable as they have first-class, List A, T20 status ect. That is what WP:CRIN largely goes by, not always, but most of the time. Being based in India doesn't make it notable either. 10 members of the ICC might be Test nations (down to the closed door approach of the ICC), but cricket is more popular than you made out with that statement. Not that that has any bearing on this AfD, just thought I'd point that out! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also an element of WP:CRYSTAL when the impact of this league is not yet known. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I understand this !vote comes late in the AfD and that, at the moment it would appear to be a clear delete outcome. However, this tournament clearly meets the general notability guideline (GNG). A simple google news search (not even the archive) for "Celebrity Cricket League" gives 60 results, many of which are enough to be the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that the GNG requires. Some examples include, The Times of India (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Deccan Herald (1, 2, 3, 4), The Indian Express (1), The Deccan Chronicle (1, 2) and The Hindu (1). These are all from the first page of my google news search, so even more coverage than that could easily be found. To the comments above about not meeting WP:CRIN, that may very well be true, but CRIN is inclusive, not exclusive, and meeting the GNG proves notability. As to the comments about not being notable outside of India, that has never been a notability criteria (although it would be easy to argue that being notable in a country of 1.2 billion people is enough even if that were true). As to the WP:CRYSTAL comment, this tournament is verifiably occurring right now, so I'm unsure how CRYSTAL applies at all. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: I think GNG relies nowadays too much upon google search results. It's India, so cricket is popular, it involves celebrities so will get attention, but as above points have said, it doesn't make their cricket or this tournament wholly notable. It's just a glorified cricket league, played at a poor standard which gets attention solely because it involves Bollywood celebrities and is cricket - both of which in India are likely to get attention, but none outside of India. Then you'd have to ask where do we draw the line? Some celebrities having a jolly gets an article, but what about unofficial cricket leagues played to a higher standard, with actual cricketers, but with less coverage????? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you're coming from here, but these are major newspapers in India (not just tabloid rubbish) that have deemed the tournament notable enough to cover. To the comments about the quality of cricket, I definitely agree with you that there are many leagues around the world (hell, probably even my local league) that play to a much higher quality, but it is not the quality of cricket that has made the tournament notable, but rather the Bollywood celebrities (who are huge in India) have made the tournament notable. Again, just because the "significant coverage" required by the GNG will likely be confined to India, that is not a reason to delete an article on a topic that is notable to 1.2 billion people. Jenks24 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen As a unofficial cricket league with out any significant coverage fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree entirely that it's "unofficial", but to find significant coverage, either look at my !vote or search for "Celebrity Cricket League" on google news. I'm at a loss as to how you can think this fails the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage I looked at is directly related to what notable celebrities are doing and does not address the league directly and in detail. This is a case that a just because a notable person is associated with a cricket game/league it does not make that game/league notable. I am willing to change my mind if you can show me coverage that is not of that type.Mtking (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what you mean here by coverage. The event is covered by all leading national dailies in India like The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Heralad etc. both in their Print and Internet editions. The news is covered in all major news channels including CNN-IBN, NDTV etc. All major portals like SIFY cover the event. The matches are played in international stadiums like Chinnasamy, Chidambaram etc. to packed houses. The matches are covered like all over India by 4 channels - Sahara One, STAR Vijay, MAA TV, Gamini TV all having a huge customer base.
    Anish Viswa 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue here is that is the coverage is either about what the notable celebrities are taking part or is just routine coverage of a sports event, there is nothing that I have seen that that could be called significant coverage that address the league directly in detail. If you disagree then please post a link to it and I am willing to re-consider. Mtking (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eaiea

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

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

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

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

A constructed musical language. No more evidence of notability than the previous version of this article (which I have restored for comparison purposes). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've read the old and new versions of this article, and the previously deleted version had no in-line citations, and the only sources listed were the conlang's webpage and Langmaker. The new version has in-line citations from both the Eaeia webpage and three different reliable independent sources. Bennett Chronister (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't know why RHaworth says it doesn't establish notability any better than the old article. This one uses independent sources (as you can see if you read it). Wiwaxia (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the three people voting to keep it are frequent contributors to conlang articles, including this one, so their assessment of reliability should be subjected to scrutiny, as should Bennett Chronister's, whose sole three edits in the last seven years have been in AFD entries for conlangs.

Let's get real here and go over the "reliable sources": the UCLA citation is a Media Arts User Page, which is basically a collection of student project pages hosted by UCLA. In other words, it's not an academic site. To make matters worse, the page mentions Eaiea only in passing and directly cites langmaker.com! The next citation, the PDF file, has apparently been deleted. However, if we move up the URL we find first an abandoned blog and then a site for a fraternity that also seems to be abandoned. After that is eaiea.com. Very reliable! The sole serious citation to be found is an online magazine article about Solresol which again mentions Eaiea only in passing. (I should also note that the article uses this image, which suggests that the writer used Wikipedia as a source for Solresol. I suspect that he went from there to Eaiea and that that is his sole source of information)

I think it would be nice if people who don't have a particular interest in conlanging were to come here and weigh in on the notability of this article because these citations are not reliable. Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I click on http://www.mubetapsi.org/clef/print/clef_s09.pdf I don't get a deleted file. I get Volume 48, Issue 1 of The Clef, the spring 2009 issue of this college newsletter. It is dated April 15, 2009. I first found that newsletter a year ago when I was first searching for reliable sources I could use in an article on Eaiea. I should note that I found a fourth reliable independent source on Googlebooks. I found Eaiea discussed in a book that mentioned that Bruce Koestner was a fan of Solresol! That would have been a great fact to have in this article. Alas, one year later I can no longer find this book on either Googlebooks or Amazon. Voters should note that notability is determined by whether good sources exist, not by whether the article cites any in its current form. In case you're wondering about the Mu Beta Psi newsletter, Amazon is discussed on pages 4 thru 5, in an article titled "Musical Languages".

Oh and by the way, Hermione, that'd be three out of three keepers are frequent contributors to conlang articles.Wiwaxia (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, because Bennett Chronister's only contribution to conlang articles has been in AFD discussions spaced two years apart, and he's done nothing else since 2004. That is ultra shady. As for the PDF: it wasn't working when I checked it out the other night, so I assumed it has been deleted. However, now that I have a chance to look at it, I see that the writer doesn't say anything that can't be gotten from eaiea.com, and the mention of the one act opera is a dead giveaway ("according to one website..."). This is essentially a proxy citation of eaiea.com, just like the UCLA link is a proxy citation of Langmaker.com. Hermione is a dude (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - I feel somewhat unpleasantly surprised by this attitude. In fact, Hermione, you better listen to people who contribute more regularly to articles about constructed languages, because that means in all probability that they are interested in the field and actually know something about it. Would you prefer it if people wrote only about subjects they know nothing about? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC) - Aha, and for the record: I have no relationship at all with either Eaiea or its creators, so you can't seriously accuse me of being biased or having a conflict of interest. Nor do I favour an approach of including every possible conlang here, as you can easily deduct from my voting history - and while you're at it, you'll also find out that I never participate in votes about subjects I'm ignorant about. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that we should be inviting total morons who think all constructed languages most be deleted because they "aren't real", but this sort of discussion shouldn't be limited to people who themselves have articles about their conlangs on this Wiki which only barely achieve notability. There are certainly people here who don't know about conlanging but can can still judge this and similar articles fairly. Hermione is a dude (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know about the history of this article, but it clearly doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Of the four sources used by the article, two have a single sentence on Eaiea, one is not independent in any way and the other doesn't seem to be a very significant 3rd party source. Searching the web doesn't bring up any significant, independent coverage of the language making it clear that notability is difficult, if not impossible, to establish. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above. Badgernet ₪ 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four sources are cited: one is definitely not RS (it's a personal page), one is not independent and thus not RS for notability purposes (the language's website), one is a college newspaper and thus not RS for notability purposes (the music fraternity newsletter), and one is Terra Magazine, which seems to be reliable but is not sufficient to establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the things others said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnhelm bearer (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I've checked out the college newsletter and this source is fine. It's professionally piblished and appears in dead-tree format as well as online, with multiple writers and an editor. This is professional and well-put-together. I should also note that this isn't just a passing mention like the other two secondary sources in the article - there's enough to write a longer-than-a-stub article. Non-trivial mention, reliable source, independent - this newsletter meets all three criteria. Subliminable (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not independent - all of the information in that article clearly comes from Eaiea.com. Hermione is a dude (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editors of Wikipedia! I thought it might be a good idea to come on here and show everyone this post someone started on the Zompist Bulletin Board (it's a forum that's a part of Zompist.com) where a user named " Xeroderma Pigmentosum" tries to gather up a bunch of "yes" votes. This doesn't sound like something this ol' Wiki would be down for, so keep your eyes peeled! ;) Patiku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fascinating. Xeroderma Pigmentosum, who are you on Wikipedia, and where else have you canvassed for "keep" votes? Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Roller Vixens

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. 6 gnews hits [8] with all coverage from Jackson, Mississippi. seems like no one else outside this town is interested in this minor amateur league. also the article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A local league that lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino adoption of YouTube

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

Article is nothing but original research and YT links. No reliable sources, and on the fact of it, is completely unencyclopedic. ArcAngel (talk) ) 08:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and unreferenced. LK (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and totally promotional. "Many Filipinos have rose to stardom and become Filipino YouTube Wonders": apart from the promotional language, what does this tell us? Are filipinos any different in this respect than people from anywhere else? No significant information content at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, nothing but promotion for non-notable people. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per criterion #2, obviously disruptive nomination. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Palestinian nationality

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

Article contains a large amount of original research on a non-existent, fabricated identity, namely the so-called "Palestinians". If anything, it should be merged with the article about Jordanians (see point 2)

Facts:

1. Palestine the name given a British-controlled territory after WW1, which never existed as an independent state. Most of this "Palestine" is called Jordan today.

2. Only 700,000 people were living in the Mandate of Palestine, with most of the Arabs living East of the River Jordan, in the modern day country of Jordan.

3. Under Muslim rule the region had been reduced to a barren wasteland. Most of it was uninhabited, and they did not call themselves "Palestinians," but thought of themselves as "Arabs" Jews were the only people that produced anything for the region, and built the cities into what it was today causing resentment from the masses of illiterate and poverty-ridden Arabs. Jews never held any political power until 1948. JewishLeftist (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Odd Future Tape

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

Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. Though there are listings on both Billboard and AMG, neither has a review of this album, and the album has never charted. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep whilst I'm not really a fan, this band is really popular with many young people. the recent Australian tours had large crowds and there was a lot of debate over the band. I'll search for some articles. I noticed pitchfork is already in the references - don't you consider them a RS? as I understand it, this band has become wildly popular without major media press coverage - they've used download sites and their blog and word of mouth. it's one of the modern success stories (or perhaps a return to the old days pre-PR / pay for coverage media?). so I'm not sure there'll be much coverage of this tape, but in future I think people will look back and say it was one of the most successful to use this model. in this modern world. this is the main reason I'll work on this article and try find some sources Kathodonnell (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some reviews/articles on Pitchfork, XXL Magazine, LA Weekly. and some blogs/music sites. I've added them as inline refs to the article. (also moved the reviews from infobox to "Reception" section as per infobox page). so, yes, my decision is keep for this article Kathodonnell (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an over-abundance of coverage but a significant release from a notable group with some coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radical (mixtape)

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

Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage found, and no listings or reviews on either Billboard or AMG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review is added L Trey (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A paragraph in Pitchfork is not enough. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt-out diabetes mellitus

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

Concept not widely used, recently introduced but without clear description of notability. It is well known that people with diabetes whose renal function deteriorates need reduced insulin doses, and sometimes can completely discontinue treatment. The 2010 article did not introduce that concept. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creators do not seem to be active in the article's improvement. Subject's notability is questionable, so if this cannot be established, then definitely send it down the tubes. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this topic is clearly against freedom of science and paradigm shifting efforts and consistent with hostile bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deletion of this topic is clearly against freedom of science and against potential paradigm shifting efforts and consistent with hostile bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You may want to soothe your hostile feelings and come up with a more practical reason to keep this article. The notability of the subject is what matters to Wikipedia. And the notability of this subject is questionable. If you disagree, then please supply an objective argument for this subject's notability. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are about 14,700 websites on this topic in GOOGLE. Its paradigm-shifting nature naturally antagonizes people who cannot agree that diabetes mellitus may be burnt out and may hence eventually have a cure. The hostile bias against such scientifically sound steps is natural. However, it may not lead to its deltion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your argument is compelling, and I wonder if the term "burnt-out diabetes" might have an even wider scope. It is intriguing to me that, while nobody seems to know why, this type of surgery also reverses diabetes type II in 90% of cases.

As the warning box indicates, anyone can feel free to continue to edit this article. Since the article is a stub with only one inline citation and three other references, what it needs to "survive" seems to be to expand it with more applicable information, and to find and add more reference citations, more scholarly, third-party references. As it is now, it cannot remain and should be deleted; however, if what you say is true and is more than just original research, then it should not be difficult to improve this article so that it would no longer be a deletion candidate. Are you willing to take on this task? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 10:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted * Will try to add a few excerpts in 2-3 weeks after contacting some experts and opinion leaders
[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these types of surgery virtually "cure" diabetes clearly show that diabetes can be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Löschen WP:NEO that hasn't been picked up. the hindu article uses the term in passing. the journal article is about the topic, but does not satisfy WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that References expanded below means adding one new reference by two of the same authors (Csaba P. Kovesdy and Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh). Still doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NEO. -Atmoz (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References expanded. Article expanded. Over 2,000 websites refer to "burnt-out diabetes". This is a significant theme and may not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recent neologism with no evidence of it having become an accepted term. Given the low impact of the two papers (4 and 3 citations), notability of the subject is not established.Novangelis (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hodgy Beats. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER, consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dena Tape

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

Album that fails WP:NALBUM, and no reliable sources to establish said notability exist on the article. Being that it was made available for free download, it is highly unlikely that this album will ever chart. Though it is listed on both Billboard and AMG, there are no reviews for it on either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about one of several IRC modes in emacs. Oddly enough, it does not appeared to be covered in emacs books probably because it was adopted as "standard" (which means included) in emacs 22 (2007). The totality of independent coverage here is about 400 words in a single linux.com article covering this and three other emacs IRC clients. This level of coverage does not justify a separate article in my view. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that this "standard" is questionable because the linux.com article cited does not even say this; see WP:V. It only says that this mode and ERC are both bundled with emacs 22. The difference is that you invoke rcirc with M-x irc and the other one with M-x erc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing list announcement did not say this is standard either, so I've changed the article in that respect. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source which is also present in the stub article is also a reliable source. It is in Russian, but given your outrage in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxmail and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disgraceful, thinly-veiled racist comments over people discounting Chinese sources, you should give the same respect to other non-English sources. Linux.com was previously established to be a reliable source at RS/N and by further research done by User:Pcap. Further, this AfD nomination appears to be retaliation for me bringing up FuFoFuEd's unusual editing behaviour at ANI. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between these articles is both qualitative and quantitative. Foxmail has dozens of articles in Chinese sites like sina.com and 163.com, as well as a bunch of Chinese books, and is known to have have captured a significant portion of the Chinese email market in the beginning of the last decade. This emacs mode has a 1/4 of an article in English (in a source whose reliability and notoriety I did not contest, so I don't know why you even bring that up) and a Russian article in alexott.net, a site that is of questionable notoriety. It may well be one person's self-published blog; Alex Ott? Based on his CV he translated in Russian the emacs manual and writes a blog, which is probably a continuation of that area of interest. Also, I'm not targeting your contributions as you claim on a whim. I've also nominated for discussion an email mode emacs: wanderlust (software). I don't think these emacs modes are independently notable mainly because they are not discussed by sources focused on the application domain (irc or email), only by sources discussing emacs. They also have little independent coverage even in that niche context, in part because there's plethora of them (at least 3 modes for email and 4 for irc.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, where did you bring my behavior to ANI? I recall Msniki did that complaining that I wrote an essay, which was then deleted. Is this a different discussion? If so, I can't find it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dot.AY

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

A chiptune musical artist. Has only one non-trivial reference where he explained what chiptune is on the TV show Good Game. Has self-released two albums that are available for free on his site. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and doesn't have enough coverage anywhere to pass the GNG. Kevin (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer Above. Five Years 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and then redirect to Emacs. Consensus to delete but with no objection to redirect the article title. So Why 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlust (software)

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage. I'm not counting the emacs wiki and blog as independent. I found a one-line mention in a book [9] with a screen shot, which doesn't seem to justify a separate Wikipedia article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various modes of emacs for email (rmail, vm, wanderlust) should be discussed at the article on emacs. Independent notability of these is questionable. Rmail gets most coverage, because most emacs books are rather old. [10] [11]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turns up hundreds of articles and mentions about it just in English; in addition, it has a great deal of popularity among Japanese-speaking users. The article could certainly use a bit of expansion, but not deletion. The emacs wiki has no relation to Wanderlust (which does not ship with Emacs); it just provides information about it. The blog and the hundreds of other articles about Wanderlust certainly count as independent. Keep. --Josh Triplett (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the emacs wiki is a directory of all the emacs modes. It is simply part of the emacs documentation. If we accept that wiki as a source of notability, we'd have to create a Wikipedia article for every emacs mode, for instance AnyIniMode. See WP:EVERYTHING. Can you point out something that is considered independent as well as reliable according to the Wikipedia rules? Blogs are excluded unless they have been written by a previously published expert; see WP:SPS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to suggest that the emacs wiki counted as notable, just independent. Also, I don't intend to suggest that any random Emacs mode necessarily needs a Wikipedia article; in this case, the mode in question effectively counts as an application (a mail reader) that happens to run inside Emacs, which seems distinct from the case of a mode for editing a particular type of file. As for the type of sources, I doubt you'll find Wanderlust written about in a printed book (as with most modern software, for which the web works as a far better substitute), and certainly not if you expect more than just a mention. I can trivially find a large number of pages written about Wanderlust (just by searching for "wanderlust mail", without the quotes) that have nothing to do with the author; I don't plan to go through all of those to find one that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. (I'd argue that "preponderance of the evidence" ought to apply here, personally.) If that makes Wanderlust non-notable, feel free to go ahead and merge it into Emacs. --Josh Triplett (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the Notability policy of WP, but this article is certainly rather sparse. I'd like to see the article expanded, but if it is to be deleted, could it possibly be replaced with a redirect to the relevant section of the Emacs page, and the (meagre) contents moved there? Ketil (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the emacs article arleady says just about the same thing as this one, except for the infobox. I don't think it's practical to add infoboxes for all the emacs mode versions there, but a table might work. As for the sources noted by Josh above, they are similar in nature to those for SFML, which was deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (2nd nomination). FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fungimol

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

No indication that this piece of software is anyway notable. Google search doesn't do much to convince that it is. (Moreover the article is a straight copy and paste of the software documentation, without proper attribution). T R 06:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched google, google news, google scholar, google books, and google images. On the web sites where this can be found it appears to repeat some lines from the product documentation verbatum. I don't see any real reviews or descriptions from reliable third party sources. There are no hits on google scholar, or google images, and no news sources cover this software. There is only one hit on google books, but that appears to be some sort of self promotion. This article does not appear to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. The topic appears to be lacking in notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above opinions. Doesn't appear notable. Captain panda 18:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Entertainment Weekly. v/r - T P 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewwy Award

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this entertainment "award" given out by an entertainment magazine. Sources trace back to the magazine itself. PROD removed by IP "editor" without comment, which in my opinion should be treated as if it didn't happen. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Entertainment Weekly. The only coverage of the Ewwy awards is from Entertainment Weekly itself. It would be appropriate to trim heavily and merge the main details. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A basic Google search came up with these third party sources: [12] [13] [14] Ruby2010 comment! 04:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first item is a blog from AMC touting their own show, and encouraging viewers to vote for them; the second is a press release. Neither of those are reliable sources. I'm not sure what sort of editorial oversight is used on that site. At this point, I wouldn't put much weight into it for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable blog award rewarding shows not good enough for the Emmys, of which there are at least 50-100 of which on various TV blogs in mid-July every year. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Entertainment Weekly per Whpq. No need for a separate article, but there are four sources that should be kept. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge. It would belong better in the main subject's article. Not to mention Entertainment Weekly being a reliable source, I don't see why it can't go in the Entertainment Weekly article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

140-169

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

I presume that these are train cars or electric bus cars (streetcars ?)... however there's very little context to identify them. I'd suggest the content be merged into the Winnipeg Transit or New Flyer article, if appropriate, but this article title makes no sense as a redirect. Moreover, I suspect that it's a table of individual cars because it lists a VIN number entry. This is overwhelmingly specific and makes me wonder about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a way to merge this content into an appropriate article I'm ok with that, but this as a standalone is a delete and it has no business as a redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criteria A1. No context. LK (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these would appear to be buses, notability of which is not established. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea what this article is supposed to be about and the one provided reference is no help. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is enough context to establish that this is probably intended to be a list of buses, there is no indication of notability. I can see the potential for an article about the history of the vehicle types used by Winnipeg Transit, we don't (afaics) have such an article and this contains so little content that it wouldn't be any use to start such an article (or even merge to one if we did have). Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'nuff said. Imzadi 1979 → 22:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No idea what it's about from what's written in it. If it is a list of buses then it's not notable anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian counseling

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

Not notable, pseudo-science fringe topic. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether pseudo-science, fringe, or both, the subject receives substantial coverage in RSs far exceeding that required of WP:GNG as indicated by this Google Scholar search which comes up with thousands of books and articles including this article from the Journal of Counseling Psychology. And a Google Books search reveals many books and other materials dealing with the topic (including a source already cited in the article). Same with news searches. Novaseminary (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books with this exact title and so the topic is notable. Please see our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several books with this title shows it's notable... WP:SNOW soon? Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong namespace, article and talk page both speedied. Non-admin. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Claire Myers

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

Blatant hoax, the IMDB reference refers to this person and the second references does not refer to anything in the article. The subject of the article lacks GHits and GNEWS. Should have been Speedy Deleted, but the CSD was removed by another editor. ttonyb (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Goojvin

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

Contrary to my initial PROD rationale, this singer doesn't completely lack coverage in reliable sources, but the one story provided still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or any of the less specific or more specific notability guidelines, which require multiple sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After doing searches in google books, google news archives, and in several opera related journal/magazine subscription databases wbich I have access to, I can not find any additional sources for this person. The lack of independent coverage on this particular singer indicates to me that he does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements. However, there may be foreign language references which would not show up in my searches. If additional independent and reliable sources for this subject are found which support notability, I will change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If other sources are found that I consider to attest notability, I'll withdraw. ;) Do we know how his name is spelled in Persian or Cyrillic? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. From this list of artists in the Iranian American Art Expo 2008, his name in Persian is دانيل گوجوين. I tried searching under that term, but couldn't find anything. It's complicated by the fact that his name is originally Russian, so there may be several transliterations (both into Persian and English). However, if you watch the Voice of America feature on him, he was clearly singing leading roles in Rudaki Hall, which before the 1979 revolution was Iran's most important opera house. After the revolution, opera and western music were banned and Rudaki Hall was re-named "Centre for Revolutionary Songs and Hymns", which says it all. I suspect this is one of those frustrating cases where the subject is notable, but it's going to be impossible to find the sources normally required to prove it. Or at least impossible to find them without library research and a knowledge of Persian. If I were the Empress of Wikipedia, I'd ignore all rules and vote keep on the basis of the VoA feature. So I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. However if it is deleted, I think it should be without prejudice to re-creation if sources can be found. Voceditenore (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to find a brief piece about him in a news archive that I have a subscription to:

"Daniel Goojvin, well known to art collectors in Italy, France, Spain, Greece and Russia, introduces an original oil painting on canvas, 'You will remember me forever, Last Supper' The size of the piece is 48 x 30 inches, and retails for $9,000. Goojvin has over 3,500 oil-on-canvas pieces in private collections around the world. His accomplished style has won him many titles and awards from prestigious art associations and clubs, and he has held over 150 exhibits across Europe and Asia. Trained as an opera singer and actor, Goojvin has performed in over 90 opera productions and has had supporting roles in four major motion pictures." (Art Business News (September 2004). "Artist Showcase: Daniel Petrovich Goojvin")

Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not independent. Check out the rest of it here: it gives a phone number for more information, it's probably some sort of paid listing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know and in any case his notability would derive from his opera career in Iran. According to these memoirs of Liliana Osses Adams who was Principal Harpist for the Rudaki Opera and Ballet in the 1970s (and briefly mentions Goojvin as one of the permanent singers there), the Rudaki opera house archives were completely destroyed after the Islamic Revolution. Thus the only possibility of finding anything would be in a library holding copies of newspapers published in Iran between 1967-1978. The only similar case to this one was Wu Pak Chiu but at least there a scan of his obituary was available. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Osses Adams also has some scans of programs from the last two years at the opera house, which have Goojvin listed (name spelled Goujvin) but in comprimario roles, e.g. Dr. Caius in Falstaff and Borsa in Rigoletto. Under that spelling he's also listed in an issue of Opernwelt from 1978 as Dancaire in a Tehran production of Carmen. But so far that's it in relation to what's online. Voceditenore (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Albatross (EP)

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this album in any reliable third party sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage for this EP found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 03:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port Blue - The Airship (Album)

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this album in any reliable third party sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My understanding is that staff reviews on sputnikmusic are considered reliable, so the EL from the article seems to be an acceptable source. However, I'm not finding any more significant coverage that would get this album to pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. If that holds up, then I'd just add any pertinent info on the album to Adam Young's article. Gongshow ^Talk 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm. I didn't actually realize that sputnikmusic represents a reliable source. That makes this a bit more borderline than I had thought. Regardless, I certainly agree with incorporating any verifiable information from this article into the Adam Young article if this ends in deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, there's a distinction made (at least at WikiProject Albums) between sputnik's staff and non-staff reviews, but either way I'd like to see more coverage than that one source in order to keep. Gongshow ^Talk 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What little content exists, including the infobox, should be folded into the Adam Young article unless better sourcing can be found. (This case defines the borderline.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also covered by AllMusic Guide [15] Mordac (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Exchange System

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

Unable to find any reliable sources using the term "Community Exchange System" to refer to the subject of this article. ^Bongo_matic 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this system in reliable sources. They are mentioned as an example in articles about alternative currencies and barter systems. See [16], and [17]. But these are passing mentions and are insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Tree

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG is questionable. bender235 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? - Is there really any reason to relist a non-commented debate twice? If no one comments it can reasonably be assumed that no one feels strongly enough about the subject either to support or dispute the deletion suggestion. Just sack up and delete it already. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, fails WP:N. Mtking (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interchurch Organisation for Development Cooperation

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

fails WP:ORG. despite existing for over 45 years, all it gets passing mentions in 3 of the 4 gnews hits [18]. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. (as an editor of that page, i was surprised to even find it at the onset!). Soosim (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - The current state of the article may not accurately represent coverage. There appears to be coverage (...not sure how significant) according to this Google books search. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still agree to have it deleted. Soosim (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

really? - If no one cares enough to comment after two weeks I think it's safe to assume that the deletion suggestion is undisputed. Just delete it already. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some suggestions to merge a few of these (which lack independent sourcing) with the artist seem to be reasonable, but I am leaving that matter up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (Hugh Cornwell album)

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

fails WP:ALBUMS and WP:GNG. no evidence of charting or significant non trivial coverage [19]. also nominating by same artist:

Wolf (Hugh Cornwell album), no real coverage [20]
Solo_(Hugh_Cornwell_album), [21]

those wanting to keep must demonstrate meeting WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, not simply saying WP:ITSUSEFUL to keep discographies. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a Hugh Cornwell discography article - detail on Cornwell's releases belongs in this encyclopedia even if we can't find sources to justify individual articles via Google, and the verifiable details such as tracklistings, labels can be included in the discography.--Michig (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no point in creating a discography article for his albums and just tracklistings. Grouping a whole lot of non notable albums into one article does not add up to one notable discography article. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable artist and information on his releases is clearly encyclopedic. What exactly is a 'notable discography article'? - it's subjects that are notable, not articles, and Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable. Cornwell is of sufficient stature in British music that all of his albums will have received reviews from the music press - unfortunately most of these are not available online. This does not make the albums 'non-notable', it simply means that we don't have sources readily available on which to base articles. That's why in cases such as this, articles may not be justified but verifiable encyclopedic information about the albums should be included either in the artist article or in a separate discography article.--Michig (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable", no. body of work must meet WP:NALBUMS. all his own article needs to list is albums. we don't need to create a directory of track listings as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? NALBUMS is purely for albums. Notable artists' bodies of work are clearly of encyclopedic interest. Details of albums have nothing to do with NOTDIR.--Michig (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, well-known artist, sourcing issues shouldn't be fixed by deletion. Also suspicious that these have all been lumped together - the headline item is a self-released live album, whereas Wolf is a major release on Virgin featuring several famous musicians. Not the same thing. Bienfuxia (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Mayday gets a four-star review at AllMusic; Wolf almost certainly had extensive coverage in the UK music press at the time (1988, when he was still in The Stranglers) that hasn't made it online; even if Solo isn't notable in its own right, Cornwell certainly is, and it should be kept for the same reasons that are outlined elsewhere. (In short, it comes down to the recommendation in WP:OSE: "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.") BlueThird (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also an AfD for Wired. BlueThird (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added significant extra information for Wolf, including references to Trouser Press (for the album) and the Los Angeles Times (for the lead single and accompanying video). BlueThird (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on Wolf is now suitably referenced using third party sources. The album was released in both the UK and the US, where a single from the album charted in the US alternative rock charts. The album is clearly notable from a notable artist. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wolf certainly has enough sources. Mayday appears to as well given the Allmusic article and the independent article already referenced in the article. Not sure about Solo, although if no independent sources exist I would follow WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This may or may not strictly meet the letter of the speedy keep guidelines. However, this article's previous AFD was closed a little over a week ago, and a merge discussion is actively ongoing. That editorial process should be permitted to run its course. If consensus on the merge or redirect process fails to form after a reasonable amount of time (perhaps a month or so), then another trip to AFD might be warranted. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

System bus model

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was proposed for deletion last year and nominated for deletion last month. The events concerning the proposed deletion was detailed in the previous AfD. The previous AfD was closed after approximately three weeks as no consensus. The rationale for deletion remains unchanged from the last year's and last month's efforts — the lack of notability and any appropriate alternatives. Additional discussion of relevance can be found at Talk:System bus model#Merge to System bus. Rilak (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close the last discussion was closed about a week ago. You should be going to DRV to reopen the last discussion. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP:DRV is that it prescribes no such thing. Rilak (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think the proposed deletion has any bearing on this here... prod's are fragile things; if somebody disagreed that doesn't preclude a nomination--in some cases it actively encourages it. WP:DRV has no bearing here. Nobody actually ever (I think) !voted keep without also suggesting a merge; the no consensus was predicated on a lack of a suitable target for a merge. There's an active talk page discussion. Perhaps a target's been found. I'd probably prefer if Rilak waited longer or more actively pursued the merge route, but there's nothing improper about this nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a month since the last nomination, and nothing has changed since. This seems to be a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Shadowjams is entirely correct when he says there is plurality support for a merge, and I suggest that you return to the talk page and seek consensus about where to merge it to.—S Marshall T/C 07:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The article has not been fully merged into system bus. No need for an AfD, this can be handled on the talk page. Relisting an article on AfD a week after it has previously be closed, for the third time by the same nominator, without and essential change to the circumstances is obviously not going to provide any new insights and therefore disruptive. —Ruud 08:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majority support of an action without merit does not (or more realistically, should not) stand. Most of the keeps and merges in the first AfD have unrecoverable flaws that make them equivalent to votes; and AfD is not meant to be voting, but discussion based on policy, guidelines, and the facts.

For instance, in the second week of the first AfD, Ruud Koot asserted that the article is about the system bus and therefore should be kept or merged. I objected to this on the basis that the article was not about system bus, but the system bus model, and that the article only had coverage of the system bus as background information.

Whose argument is of merit? Is the claim that the article is about the system bus supported by the facts? Specifically, is this what the article claims its subject to be; and is this what the references cited in the article claims the subject to be?

Instead of resorting to referencing policies, guidelines, and the like, can we please examine arguments to determine if they carry any weight and present counterarguments if they do not? Referencing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED actually works in my favor because, as what you linked to says, "This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." In the last AfD, the notability concerns were not addressed, as were the appropriateness of the suggested merge targets.

WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED also says, "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination." Was it proven that the rationale in the PROD and the first AfD was invalid? I don't think so. With the exception of two or so editors, the rationales were consistently ignored — ignoring the argument does not prove it, or make it, invalid. Those who did not ignore the AfD rationale and tested it eventually supported deletion. (Also of relevance is the ensuring discussion at Talk:System bus model#Merge to System bus).

So does three clear deletes founded on discussion vs three clear keeps/merges founded on baseless assertions look like a clear and unanimous opposition to deletion you? This and the demonstrated poor quality of the first AfD makes describing this AfD as "frivolous" absolutely unwarranted. Rilak (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote User:Christopher Thomas: "There will come a time when you disagree with community consensus, and you know that you are right, and it's about something important. The correct thing to do is to respect community consensus anyways." No go merge the article so everyone is happy or stop wasting their time. —Ruud 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say: Referencing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED actually works in my favor because, as what you linked to says, "This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." In the last AfD, the notability concerns were not addressed, as were the appropriateness of the suggested merge targets. This represents a misunderstanding of notability. Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. In other words, all things being equal, we should have an article on something if it's notable and not if it's not. But the fact that something's not notable doesn't mean it can't be merged or redirected. It just means it can't have its own article. Do you see?
A merge outcome is entirely consistent with our notability guidelines. And there are two important reasons why it's the correct outcome. First, it benefits end-users. "System bus model" is a plausible search term. Readers searching for it should be directed to an article that actually mentions the topic. And second, it reduces potential hassle for editors. If we delete "system bus model" then we will leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to write an article in that space, whereas if there's a redirect, then there's much less risk that we'll find ourselves back here in a few months' time deleting another version (and incidentally giving our hypothetical inexperienced editor a bruising introduction to Wikipedian bureaucracy).
In other words, whenever we're dealing with a plausible search term, correct outcomes include keep, merge, redirect or disambiguate. Deletion is only an option for plausible search terms if there's a copyright violation, BLP issue or other major issue with the content, in which case it should be deleted and a fresh redirect or disambiguation page created at once.
There are absolutely no circumstances in which it's a good idea to leave a plausible search term as a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The previous discussions failed to establish a consensus to delete and the nomination does not advance any new argument. Our editing policy is to retain such material for further work by means of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I offer no new argument is because the opposition has not responded, let alone invalidated the original argument. Is the reason why all sorts of non-notable garage bands, Pokemon and it elk, pseudoscience and fringe views remain on Wikipedia because one can keep an article whose notability is claimed and found to be non-notable by merely ignoring such concerns? Rilak (talk)

Comment Shouldn't the two merge discussions be closed first? (Even if the results are 'No consensus'.) --Trevj (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James arvanitakis

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

Autobiographical article with notability concerns and lack of adequate verifiable third-party sources. Enough importance is claimed to pass A7, but Ghits is primarily personal blog and social media sites. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article needs a lot of work doing to it and it needs to be referenced properly and/or pruned accordingly. He is a sociologist and has a large presence on social media sites. There is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. He is also an author of more than one book and they too have coverage. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 08:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no real indications of notability or references to establish this. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability threshold for academics -- Samir 07:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography according to this. It would immediately fuel the deletion up, as well as the fact that he's simply a senior lecturer. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San_Francisco_Giants#Radio_and_television. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kruk and Kuip

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologisms are not encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO, "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Information in this article is more relevant and notable to existing articles about the individuals Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper, List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters, 2010 San Francisco Giants season, and the San Francisco Giants. It is not notable enough as a stand-alone article unless it passes WP:GNG and coverage is found that is significant and not WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple, independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based primarily on this reference. I don't believe that WP:NEO applies, because this article is not about the neologism itself, but about the two sportscasters, who are notable. A second choice would be to redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television. Ma^t_chups 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are notable, which is why they have individual articles. This adds nothing, other than the neologism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - The article is unsourced, and I don't know if it is sourceable or not. To the extent the information is sourceable, it should probably just be merged to List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters, and any other relevant information from Matchups' source could be added as well. Then this can be turned into a redirect to the broadcaster list. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television--Yankees10 02:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Francisco Giants#Radio and television. Beyond the obvious WP:NEO argument, there is also nothing in this article that explains why this specific pairing is itself notable beyond its being composed of two already-notable personages, other than having a cutesy name attached to it. The target I chose is preferable to List of San Francisco Giants broadcasters since it already has information on the topic, and is more likely to be kept current. It will eventually have to redirect to the latter, of course. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, per Dewelar. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted; article made no assertion of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectSharp Consulting

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

There is no indication that this company is notable. No coverage of this company in secondary sources was found in Google Web, News, and Books. Rilak (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't even see a claim to being notable so should just be Speedy Deleted A7. Mtking (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, go away. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admir Adrović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about an athlete who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT. The PROD was contested on the grounds that Damash Gilan play in the Iranian Pro League, that he has played for his countries national team, and that he has appeared in the Champions League. All of Mr. Adrović's appearances for Damash Gilan have been in the Iranian second division, which is not listed as fully pro, his international appearances have been at the U21 level explicitly excluded by WP:NSPORT, and his Champions League appearances have been qualifying which means they do not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He did play in Montenegrin First League and Iranian 2nd division, Iranian team Damash got promoted to Pro League, if he'll be member of team for another season he'll play in Iran Pro league. Joojoo 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Montenegrin First Division is not fully pro and therefore insufficient for notability. See WP:FPL for sourcing. Saying that he will play in the Iranian Pro League is speculation which is never grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Henderson (computer scientist)

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

fails WP:BIO. the only coverage I could find was the chef by the same name. nothing for his claim to fame about inventing mercury programming language [22]. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one bit of secondary coverage is relatively discoverable [23], a paper with Henderson as the primary author is widely cited, [24] (340 cites, for what it's worth). There're a number of other peer reviewed articles published by him, not entirely convinced that GScholar results alone would get him to WP:SCHOLAR, but with the ARN link I think he's notable enough for a bit of an article. . --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable enough for the Professor test, he is well-cited in a field not well known to the layperson. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was No consensus. CBD 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Cargo Express

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

Non notable cargo airline company, preliminary research suffices this fact, as it only shows links to social networks. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err... an article by Wall Street Journal count as link to social network? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In-depth coverage, not substantial, even by reliable source does not establish notability. There are several factors that are required to make this article get deleted. The article provided above is a trivial and routine work focused on this company. The same way it is also written like a promotional referendum or press release. The company is likewise locally known, the article should also provide details about its services and products, because talking solely about the company makes its lack of notability ubiquitous. Also the company does not have a large lifespan, does not feature anyone known or important on its crew nor the size of the crew is large, it hasn't achieved any achievement, doesn't have any controversy historic. Well even though this is a extensive list of reasons why this article is not notable, it does not conclude anything as anyone can make a further research and expand the article accordingly, what I don't think may be possible. Because using only a reference for writing the article make it kind of a primary source. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable airline. Keb25 (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.[25]--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google hits does not provide certainty on the inclusion of a subject on Wikipedia, not all sources from Google search are reliable or does not provide depth in its coverage. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of the sources found by that search are reliable and do provide depth of coverage. Please comment on those particular search results rather than make a general statement about Google hits, which is irrelevant to this Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News results are related to any site using meta key with blog, newsletter, feeds, it does not provide reliability. There are several community essays about it, google hits (being in any google namespace) does not prove notability, as Google test is only related toward the focus of the article (to see if the article is really what it is on wikipedia) or how popular it is. For further reference see either WP:GOOGLEHITS or WP:GOOGLETEST Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the Wall Street Journal article as a way to proof notability but you seem to intentionally ignore it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on it! I didn't ignore it, I read it, but the notability factor of this company seems limited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And providing a valid point to this discussion regarding the google thing, [26] is a search on google news for a deleted article that wasn't notable enough, but its result show it is popular. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World-Point Academy of Tourism

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

declined speedy. not sure why. fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnew in Malay nor English. just an advert for a small private college. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, not notable enough, there are other universities that offer PhDs in Tourism/Recreation studies that don't have articles yet. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Strongly delete. Nonaccredited "academies" that don't even pretend to be academic are a plague to Wikipedia. LibStar- schools are exempt from Speedy, which is (probably) why A7 was declined. tedder (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beejan Olfat

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. for all the claims in the article he gets only 2 passing mentions in gnews [27]. IMDB reveals only minor roles nothing significant. the young playwrights awards are not major awards either. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree this is nothing significant in the article, as always there's a chance someday there will be a source, but for now I say delete. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent M. Buckley

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

This person appears to have received some local professional awards, but I have not found adequate coverage in secondary sources to meet the notability guideline for biographies. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He currently serves on or has served on committees and boards of 17 prominent organizations. He and his law firm have won several major awards given out by prominent third parties in the legal community both locally and nationally. There are references in the entry that proves this. He also has been involved in high profile cases with prominent clients, such as Tom Ganley. He has his own band which has performed at public events. I have added a couple more sources to help substantiate this and will search for more. Clevelandwriter13 —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almerões

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

This band does not appear to meet the applicable notability guideline. They are unsigned, and their coverage appears to consist primarily of interviews in blogs. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't agree that the condition of a band being unsigned should count on those cases, the market is full of independent bands, that are unsigned, however are reference of a country culture and became even more important and meaningful than some signed bands. At least this is the current scenario in Brazil. In what regards their coverage, in the website Portal Mogi Guaçu (which is not a blog, is a reliable communication vehicle with over 1 million views/month) article of the band, the article also includes an interview, but we have to consider that before the interview, the publisher Tarso Zagato write a press release of the band and also express a brief opinion. In addition I have updated the Almerões Wikipedia article with more detailed information of the band. Hope it helps us to solve this discussion. Sincerelly Nothingtrust (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article contained some grammar errors, I corrected it. Hope it helps. 32.104.18.240 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked this article with 3 others related articles 32.104.18.240 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched English and Portuguese sources. Only hits are either mp3 downloads, social media, or non-notable reviews. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this deletion, however I've got no more arguments to support this page (even given the fact I do believe this is compliant with Wikipedia rules/guidelines). I am working hard and researching to see if I can find more "notable/reliable" sources and I will re-submit this article once I have it in hands. I would like to say Thanks for all the discussion and comprehension 32.104.18.240 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objects of His Dark Materials

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

List of non-notable fictional objects. All original research and only one reference to a fan site. Ridernyc (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I compiled this list from several separate articles due to lack of notability for items. I don't object deletion of the list either. Mostly covered in the books articles. --Tone 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely original research, and some of this content could usefully be merged to His Dark Materials.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into His Dark Materials. Fails two of three purposes of lists because of limited usefulness in navigating the topic, and limited opportunity for expansion. Any information should be rolled into the entry for the novels, if it's not already there. Liberal Classic (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional objects do not meet the general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. As a list it also doesn't meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists and, since it falls into what Wikipedia is not, it also fails the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. And, since the article only has one reference, the majority of the content of the article appears to be original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This content is essentially unreferenced, sourced only to a fansite of dubious reliability. Those advocating merge need to tell us A) what content they think meets our content policies, and B) how the merge target would be improved by including it. Jfgslo has outlined very well why this article should be removed. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage to WP:verify notability and to make this something other than mainly WP:JUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi International Women's Club

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hanoi International Women's Club

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and only directory listings in google. gbooks reveals some one line mentions. [28]. claims of being "it is one of the biggest charitable women's organisations in Southeast Asia," don't seem backed up by multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are news stories about the group by the Vietnam News Agency here and here. VNA is Vietnam's main news service. Kauffner (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

both articles are tiny mentions, nothing in depth about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. PK T(alk) 20:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Primary concern seems to be failure to establish notability, but discussion includes links to reliable third party sources in French. Probably a good idea to add those to the articles. CBD 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion Fight Night

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

a non notable sporting competition. gets only 1 gnews hit [29]. and google search just lists promotional listings from affiliated websites. also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these are notable under WikiProject:Kickboxing. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no notability criteria listed in WIKIPROJECT:KICKBOXING. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Kickboxing is a starting up project. Its a notable event allright.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it does not meet WP:GNG so therefore is not notable. WP:ITSNOTABLE does not count. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what it doesnt meet or not, I'm one of the contributors on kickboxing here in wiki and it's a notable French promotion. Simple as that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it has to meet notability criteria to be a Wikipedia article. you have provided no sources to prove notability. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[30] one from the leading french muaythai website.
[31] results form another martial arts site.

these are not reliable sources, you need something that is third party such as a major newspaper. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On kickboxing those are as reliable as it gets.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[32] on this thread there's a link form french newspaper. you are arguing about a subject you don't know nothing about.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OWN#EVENTS. Trying to discredit others because you're an expert won't work in keeping this article. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Ownership of articles" has to do with me? I didn't create it, just trying not to get it deleted. Nothing personal buddy, you just made a mistake by tagging it for deletion thats all.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHi Libstar, as a kickboxing contributer on wikipedia I feel that the Explosion Fight events are certainly notable on a French Muay Thai scene that is arguably second behind Holland and Belarus in Europe in terms of support/prestige etc. Also of note is that some of the fighters in these events Kem Sitsongpeenong, Abdallah Mabel, Houcine Bennoui are top fighters and what we are trying to achieve on wikipedia (and one of the reasons I joined) is that fighters and events can be connected in a way that no other website can offer. Deleting these pages isn't going to help make our kickboxing pages more informative and/or consistent - in fact it will have the opposite effect. The pages also contain references so my suggestion would be to leave the pages alone and perhaps request extra references in the future. We also have a French (I think) editor Jimmy Peters who is putting alot of effort into French based pages - perhaps he needs to be informed as well. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011

Keep Hi, I think the Explosion Fight Night pages should be retained because it is a new large french organizations which combat some of the best French and international fighters such as Thai or Kem Sitsongpeenong or Ekapol Juke not to mention other. I do not understand why the Explosion Fight Night page is subject to suppression because it cites several reliable sources. As the K-1 or It's Showtime for example... I can add other sources if you wish.. Jimmy Peters (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no reliable sources that I can find. I know that's a problem for a lot of martial arts articles, but Wikipedia policy requires independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete all Needs reliable sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what kinda reliable sources? There's a links above, from third party sources, the most reliable french martial arts site and a link to a magazine article. Obviously you wont find anything from New York Times nor any other major newspaper. Majority of martial arts pages could get deleted if going by that criteria. I don't get people just typing Löschen without knowing anything about the subject.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the four sources, I see two promotional blurbs on sherdog and 2 brief summaries of the results. Since routine results are not notable, I'm not seeing reliable sources showing notability. You're right, Marty, I've had martial arts articles get deleted because I couldn't find reliable sources even when I strongly believed the subject was notable. That's a common result in the martial arts project, but Wikipedia has their policies (notably, WP:N,WP:RS, and WP:V). Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty, it's not about knowing the subject WP:IKNOWIT, it's about demonstrating reliable sources as per WP:RS in third party sources. for something to be included in WP it has to be recognised widely. otherwise all these martial arts articles are sufficiently covered in martial arts websites not here. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even unregistered users can vote for deletion now. wow I didn't know that. Muayhtaitv.com is one of the most comprehensive sites covering martial arts, totally reliable. sherdog link was only put there because it contains the copy form french newspaper, third party source. [33] - Elite Boxing -Thai site in english covers the event here under international news section. But lets backtrack this little bit, Lipstar's claim for deletion was because according to him, google gave only 1 hit. - I googled it right now and for some reason ended up with 112,000 results for "Explosion Fight Night". Theres wide variety of martial arts sites in more than three languages covering the event.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. a large number of google hits is not an indicator of notability. how about some non kickboxing websites showing coverage of this? LibStar (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[34] from Le Telegramme. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zarah Ghahramani

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. this person co wrote a notable book. coverage relates more to the book than the person. [35]. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is naturally a difficult issue, as the person is famous for her biography. However, there are sources that can be used. Perhaps her biography could be merged into her article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – subject meets WP:AUTHOR #1, #3, #4. Nomination did not follow custom by not notifying original editor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided no sources to prove #1, #3, #4 are met. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the links provided above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; e.g. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/protesters-fate-in-tehran/

#4 says: "The person's work either [...] (c) has won significant critical attention": see My Life as a Traitor#Reception. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While the article is a stub and should be expanded, the author is extremely notable having been published with a major book publisher, winning or being shortlisted for significant literary prizes, and having a number reliable sources which support notability. I've added information and references to the article but it still needs work. However, the fact that an article still needs more work is not a valid reason to delete it for notability reasons.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has potential and is well sourced. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Splott Division

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

No real notability, the creator of the page appears to be the actual maker of the piece and to be using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Barely any sources cited, etc. Overall, mis-use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes Romuska 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 6 gnews hits says it all. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turney Stevens

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

May possibly fail WP:N. Original article was practically a resume before cutting down to a single point per discussion at relevant noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, subject does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some news stories about him and re-expanded the article based on them. Most of them are just local newspaper items that don't really speak to his notability, but I think the BusinessWeek piece and the Ethisphere award are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein, it looks like he meets WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Business week is a good enough source, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Kills

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

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

This band appears to me to be non-notable. I performed a wp:before search, and could not find sufficient RS-coverage or other indicia of notability. I PROD'd the article. An SPA deleted the PROD, writing "Soap Kills had and still has a lot of influence on the Lebanese and Middle Easter music scene and is regarded as a cult band. The artists are still active in other projects." I still cannot find sufficient indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Kills is one of the first band in the Middle East to do alternative music. They have a significant influence on current bands in the region including. I don't see why not just keep the article? What harm does it make? I am not familiar with the wiki terminology, but I think its sad if the article is to be deleted as I know the heritage Soap Kills has left on the Middle Eastern music scene, its a loss to the Middle East rock, alternative and RnB heritage.SolveigMalvik (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2011 (GMT)— SolveigMalvik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solveigmalvik/Archive.

Please read WP:NOHARM. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This artist still has media coverage in 2011! e.g. Red Bull Music Academy 2011 (Soap Kills listed as psuedonym of Zeid Hamdan/Shift Z): http://redbullmusicacademyradio.com/shows/1446/Incognito Czech public broadcaster 2011, influence of Soap Kills in Middle Eastern music referenced: http://www.rozhlas.cz/radiowave/friday_ripple/_zprava/middle-eastern-spring--885695 Many more resources, e.g. this from 2006 Lebanese Daily Star http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Arts/May/20/From-Soap-Kills-to-Mooz-Records-musician-has-no-plans-to-clean-up-his-act.ashx#axzz1MeIeV3GW

It seems unbelievable this article is subject to be deleted, this a major band in alternative lebanese music. Former band members are involved in new projects. This article is very useful for the history of popular lebaneses music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.250.42.181 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC) — 194.250.42.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Soapkills IMHO is notable. For instance it fulfils WP:Notability (music) / Criteria for musicians and ensembles item 10 : 2 track of their album Cheftak were included in the soundtrack of Divine Intervention a film which is notable. I would say it fulfils item 5 as they released 2 albums distributed by what I consider an excellent Lebanese media outlet and network for Middle East cultural products, mainly music http://www.incognito.com.lb/store/node/228

As for item 12 (and 6 and 7) It had coverage through numerous broadcast in the radio programs "Ruptures" and "Décalages" on Radio Liban, mostly interviews in French of either one of the two members of the group Yasmine Hamdan and Zeid Hamdan. These are reviewed and can be listened to as archives on the site of radio producer Ziad Nawfal http://rupturedonline.com/?s=Hamdan

All this is much interconnected, but obviously Lebanon alternative/underground scene is not that big. --Cgavilan (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Cgavilan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solveigmalvik/Archive.[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that I created a personal page to try to fend off the accusation of being an SPA or a sock-puppet. Simply disregarding comments, and references because they appear, to people apparently oblivious of the fact that Wikipedia and the world are not all in English, seems short-sighted and irrational to me. It's a bit insulting to.

The suggestion by a sysop at the sock investigation was to mark the SPAs as SPAs, as you will see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solveigmalvik/Archive.

yeah delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.238.18 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To get back to rational arguments and references the 2 albums I mentioned above are on sale on I-tune also, as well as another track in a 2009 compilation http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/arabesque-arbaa-4/id286157902, and tracks in the Soundtrack of the film Intervention divine/Divine intervention which I mentioned also.

Yasmine Hamdan one of the 2 members of the band is mentioned in the WP English pages Y.A.S. and Arabology, but maybe the relevance of these pages will be questioned and they will be marked for deletion!!!--Cgavilan (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having albums available for sale on itunes do not make the band notable. Nor does passing mention of two band members in wp articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soap Kills appears to be one of the leading groups in the Lebanon music scene. Although this article is about one of the two members, it does provide some substantial coverage about Soap Kills. This book identifies them as "ultra-trendy" in noting their contribution to the soundtrack of A Perfect Day. This book identifies them as "particularly well-known". -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's significant coverage in the Daily Star, such as this, this, this, this, and multiple others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As demonstrated by commenters above, WP:GNG is satisfied (apart from the sources listed there, the band was also prominently featured by German-French TV station arte at the time, and mentioned in TIME magazine as part of an "artistically significant" music scene). I have just expanded the article, using two of these references. And as a side remark (not intended as a WP:N argument), I would like to note that I have come across anecdotal evidence confirming 194.250.42.181's claims about their status in Lebanon. For example, last year I asked a Lebanese expat (who isn't a particularly avid music fan) if he had heard of the Soapkills, and got told that they are still a household name in Lebanon, known to many young people. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this discussion is even needed is ridiculous. I was introduced to Soap Kills from a Lebanese roommate, the band is VERY MUCH SO a legitimate band and not a hoax. Why in the world would it even be considered for deletion? Because it's not a well known band? Ridiculous.--Teenageliberal (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Paul Erik found good coverage in the Daily Star, which IMHO suffices. Some of the other comments were based on anecdotal evidence ("I asked a Lebanese expat"; "my Lebanese roommate told me ..."), or based on arguments such as "what harm in having it", which is in itself less than convincing, but the Daily Star is an RS, and its substantial coverage is sufficient for me. Thanks--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Marie Simon-Pierre

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

Merge - the subject is not notable in her own right. She has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; nor made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. She is solely notable in the context of the beatification of Pope John Paul II. It is sufficient to reference her there as a stand-alone article has nothing more to add. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II. She is not notable by herself. St Anselm (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per WP:GNG. Despite the fact that she has not won awards, made recognized contrib..., etc. She has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's all you need. -Seidenstud (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge under the WP:EVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED rule. I don't think that the importance of the reported cure or the interest it has caused are in dispute. Sr Marie is merely the beneficiary of healing through grace and prayer. I don't think that she would say that she was special or marked out by that, and that it was obtained through her particular merit. So it is not her that is notable, but the event. --AJHingston (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organic movement

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

There are no references and there does not need to be an article for this because all these topics are covered in other articles.Archwindows (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are already too many "organic" articles, this is yet another fork. There is nothing here that wouldn't be adequately covered by organic food, organic farming, etc.
Keep - This article has been worked on for a couple of years, reads quite well and does seem to contain additional information to others. It could always do with more work and references, it does have multiple refs not yet hyperlinked. I may be possible to merge but not if it is deleted. Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title of this article is notable per sources such as The origins of the organic movement. There are numerous ways of describing these inter-related topics: biodynamics, Soil Association, &c. Organising this material effectively to best serve our readers should be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion so that the edit histories and attributions are maintained and relevant material is not lost in the wash. This is our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known term and encompasses a range of related initiatives with a common philosophy. The issue should not be whether there are articles on specific components (that's fine) but whether it is a synonym for another term which also has its own article. I don't think see that it is, or that another of the existing titles could provide a natural home for a historical and philosophical overview. I think there are weaknesses in the article, and Wikipedians' desire for sources and mistrust of essays has perhaps shackled it unnecessarily from explaining, for example, what the real drivers have been. But as Colonel Warden says, we should let it evolve. --AJHingston (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al-Thawadi

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

Lack of notability. I cannot find sufficient evidence of RS news articles/books on the performer (or his band, which has also now been AFD'd) after having performed a wp:before search. Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very trivial and unreliable article. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacko Ali

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

Far too many superlatives certainly not a NPOV. I suspect the article is being used for self promotion of someone not very note worthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Memcorp (talk • contribs) 9 May 2011

Article amended This article not self promotion it was expanded using information from the following website; http://www.britbangla.net/successprofiles.html#jacko

It does appear as though it did not have a neutral tone therefore I have now amended it to a more NPOV I hope this improvement is adequate, regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanbircdq (talk • contribs) 10 May 2011

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article has no reliable sources that show notability. One source merely mentions his name and another is a website of unknown reliability. A world champion would certainly be notable if his championship could be reliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hewar

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

This band article, tagged for OR and lack of citations for three years, was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a search found an article in the Daily Star (Lebanon) (here) and the transcript from an NPR interview here - payment required to see it. I can't read Arabic, but using the name of the band "حوار" and the name of the clarinetist (Kinan Azmeh - which would translate (according to GTranslate) to "العظمة حوار"), there are several hits on GNews in Arabic (see here). It would be good if an Arabic-reading editor could look at some of those. Without knowing how much coverage there actually is, I can't comment on whether it should be deleted or not - I only have the Daily Star coverage that I can see/read! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the two sources I found are sufficient to meet notability - and if Arabic-readers could find other sources, that'd be perfect! I have been thinking about this for the last few days, since my comment, trying to decide whether this was a keep or delete, but I feel that there is just enough to warrant keeping it. It certainly needs work, and should the decision be to keep it (or a no-consensus), I will attempt to tidy it up and reference using the sources above. It might be that a redirect to Kinan Azmeh, or the one of the sources there can be used on this article. However, whether a keep, or a redirect, I think deletion is not the correct option here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, G11 by User:NawlinWiki. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting U.S. Atheism

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

Reads like essay. Only one reference. Very POV. Content was put in main article, but deleted, and put here instead. illogical pie^{(eat me)} 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental product declaration

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

Non-notable "system". Dennis Brown (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've found a credible source that refers to the system. I believe it notable. Orentago (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please share a link or three. I'm never afraid to drop a nom when my rationale is demonstrated to be mistaken. All I can do is use good faith when making the initial nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are talking about the one reference in the article, which is actually a single entry [36] that uses the word, copied from google books. The actual book, Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects By Ralph Horne, Karli Verghese, Tim Grant uses that book as a reference, but using a book that uses a book for a reference is pretty weak, and technically invalid if someone hasn't actually read the original book. Just because it uses the phrase in one sentence of a book that no one has actually read or even used as a real reference, doesn't make it a valid reference. Sorry. The only place in that one book that uses the phrase "Environmental product declaration" is that bibliography, the actual book that references it does NOT use that phrase, even once. That reference should actually be removed. I left it for now, tagged as failing verification. Would hope you would remove since you put it there, in good faith. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the original article and there's substantial mention of the subject in it. The whole article is about it. I'm not sure what more you want. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.453/abstract Orentago (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if you google the title of the article the first hit is a link to the abstract. Orentago (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book you can even read online (as not everyone has access to academic papers): Ecodesign implementation: a systematic guidance on integrating environmental considerations into product development. Orentago (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a number of articles that this might be redundant to, including environmental impact assessment and environmental impact itself. The idea of som,e kind of consumer environmental impact statement may well be a notable idea; individual proposals for formats probably are not yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of bureaucracy for this, including a range of ISO standards. Warden (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Tristan Birkin

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

written by multiplie sock puppets owned by article's subject, without citations Artberliner (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new sockpuppets who's only edits are to this article Artberliner (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - While this article does need inline references and is apparently being updated by the subject of the article, there is no basis here for deletion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator. One of our most important rules here is assume good faith. This article was created back in 2006 by User:NorthernThunder and I see no evidence that he's anybody's sock puppet. However, I see that you only have 3 edits, 2 to this discussion. One might wonder if you might be somebody's sock puppet if we were basing our judgement only on edit count. Therefore, since "sock puppetry" is the only reason you offer for why this article should be deleted, give me a reason why I shouldn't close this discussion right now. The only problem I see with the article is that while it appears to have sources, it lacks inline citations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock puppet. This article should only be removed from consideration for deletion. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. If anyone has a legitimate reason to delete the article, they can renominate it for deletion separately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: On the subject of possible sockpuppets, there are two very suspicious SPA accounts (Dtb747) and DTB77) with initials matching the article subject and having only edited this article. Then there's a new issue that has come to light with the latest edits (another SPA?) that removed the subject's middle name from the entire article: Other than the birth year I find no concrete evidence anywhere that David Tristan Birkin (the actor) and David Birkin (the award-winning photographer/actor) are the same person. However, either one of them is notable enough for an article to exist. And one more issue: The nominator's user name leads me to believe there may be a COI issue with this nomination. Conspiracies abound. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. It's quite possible that they are both the same guy and he's trying to distance himself from his "child actor" career on Star Trek TNG and others. Here's his Memory Alpha entry. Perhaps we should revert to this revision until we can sort this out. It's unsourced but it doesn't include anything but the basics that are already on IMDB. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article on notable photographer article... Remove the "T" and rename "David Birkin (photographer)", until such time as it can be confirmed that this is that same person as "David Birkin (actor)"... which may be unlikely, as the photographer was taking pix in Afghanistan in 2004, Borneo in 2005, and Mongolia in 2006... and it would seem unlikely that someone who was performing as Silvius in Sir Peter Hall's production of As You Like It [37] would be in two places at once. There is a website for award-winning photographer David Birkin born in 1977 who appears to have enough coverage] to meet WP:GNG through WP:CREATIVE.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] I am willing to accept the co-incidence of there being two seperate persons having the same first and last name, and both being notable for different reasons. HOWEVER... if we can find an image or a reliable source that shows David Tristan Birkin (actor) to be the same person as David Birkin (photographer) the information in the earlier version can be included. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're 2 different people then this article needs to be rolled back and a new article called David Birkin (photographer) needs to be created. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmi i Rrugës

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

This band article does not appear to cover a notable band. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the sources referenced in the article insufficient? For a Kosovo-Albanian group to be described in The New York Times as "star local rappers" and to get coverage in an English-language encyclopedia from an academic publisher seems pretty notable to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT devotes only 2 sentences to them.

And while the encyclopedia is listed as a ref -- please let us know what it says about the band. If anything. Since you are puzzled as to how it is not sufficient, it would be helpful to know from you what it says.

In short, it is not clear to me that 2 sentences is the sort of "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources that satisfies our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The line for which the encyclopedia is cited, "...coined the term Albanian Rap, to describe this merger of Rap music with original Albanian-themed lyrical contents", sounds like a joke. I find it hard to believe that a genuinely notable encyclopedia would seriously assert that rap written by Albanians is a different genre of music than rap written by anyone else. And putting the words "Albanian" and "rap" next to each other to describe rap written by Albanians is hardly "coining a term". That's like saying you coined the term "black dog" to describe dogs with black fur.

More importantly, all the article's claims of notability for the group, e.g. "Ritmi i Rrugës have released a great number of hit singles", are not only unreferenced(save the aforementioned line, but again, I highly doubt that encyclopedia actually says that), they are suspiciously vague. If they have so many hit singles, why doesn't the article name even one? --Martin IIIa (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I empathize about the difficulty of finding reliable sources, there are no waivers to WP:V. Ravenswing 14:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Commonwealth Games highlights

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

Unsourced article, which provides a POV view of what someone connotes to be a highlights of each day of the games. List cruft. Also wikipedia is not the news Good twins (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be moved and recast as Chronological summary of the 2006 Commonwealth Games to match the style of the one we have for the 2008 Olympics. There seems little reason why articles on large events like this can't work if referenced and titled properly. SFB 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe rename as Sillyfolkboy said. Kante4 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'

KeepPer SFB Five Years 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goldin+Senneby. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Senneby

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

Non-notable artist. Ridernyc (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Goldin+Senneby. The article is actually sourced with articles in a major Swedish newspaper, the same ones I just found and mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldin+Senneby, but these articles are all about the collaboration. It is quite possible that more sources can be found about Senneby specifically. In that case the article can be split into its own page again.--Hegvald (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted by Hegvald. PK T(alk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Grassroots

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

Non-notable Charity. Ridernyc (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. could not find significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gorman (artist)

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

Previously BLPPROD derailed by original author putting a link to art gallery site for subject. Questionable notability Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy delete as spam. "Exuberant in life, his art comes at the viewer like a churning locomotive demanding attention, demanding a response." ... really, now? Wikipedia is not a sales brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drillinginfo

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

Seems perhaps not notable. I also have a concern with a possible conflict of interest with relatively recent edits. Raymie (t • c) 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Looking given external links, it seems that this company meets notability criteria. However, the article needs a rewriting due to WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews shows no extensive indepth coverage, most of the hits come from one newspaper. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this fails the GNG and WP:CORP. That the company might have attracted some modest notice in industry journals is all very well and good, but to quote WP:CORP, "[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is no evidence of any such source. Ravenswing 14:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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