Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 10

< 9 June	11 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldtotem

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits at Google News. Very little at Google. No refs supplied in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personology

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

There doesn't seem to be any substantial difference between the subject of this article and the subject of Physiognomy. The article hasn't been edited in months, so I don't expect there are editors around to explain. .froth. (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article appears to be about a variety of physiognomy, independently developed in the 1930s. Possible merger candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per author request. 7 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Owusu

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as I am a student studying marketing, particularly looking at the Third Sector and Charities. Katrin Owusu's frankly groundbreaking work in founding Ctrl.Alt.Shift makes her a key figure in my studies and that of other students. I believe that she satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:BIO as she has been the subject of several published secondary source articles in the UK broadsheets. These are reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject and referenced in the article I created. MehdiWard (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A minor mention of the individual is not "non-trivial" coverage. The articles appear to be primarily about Ctrl.Alt.Shift. ttonyb (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've examined all 11 links provided in the article, and Ms. Owusu is not actually the subject of any of those stories. In fact, I could not locate any published story mentioning Ms. Owusu that was about her personally, as opposed to being about Ctrl.Alt.Shift or Christian Aid (or charitable work in general). Notability is not inherited by one subject from another. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED, which specifically states, "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable." — Satori Son 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo M Santos

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

Biography of a non-notable living person. The article does not pass our basic guidelines for inclusion. Blurpeace 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one certainly flew under the radar. Kudos to Paulo for slipping past the deletionist squad undetected and staying for six months, but until the world's press notices him, no article. Mandsford 13:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Location (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no news stories, no real notability, at least not yet. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No currently sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning ads targeted to women

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

Contested PROD. This article is simply a personal essay espousing a specific opinion. It is a clear case of WP:OR and WP:NOT#ESSAY.Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. If properly written and sourced per Wikipedia standards, this bit would be a good addition to Targeted advertising. (BTW: Other than the ones for Goop and diesel-powered shop vacs, aren't all cleaning ads targeted to women anyway?) Location (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFTER he gets his grade I know this is unorthodox, but can't we let the kid get a grade first? Old Al (Talk) 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting idea for a school assignment, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do homework. Note to Great Boron-- probably a good idea to save this to your hard drive before it's deleted. Plus, make sure to have a conclusion of some sort before you turn it in. Let me know on my talk page what grade you got. Mandsford 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to targeted advertising and demographics, and simply not written in encyclopedia style. If it's a class assignment, "the Wikipedia admins ate my homework" is a perfectly good excuse: Have you ever noticed in cleaning commercials that woman are always the ones doing all the cleaning? Do you ever notice any men doing the cleaning? Rarely do you see a man doing anything more then sitting on some sort of couch or recliner. Clearly women are the target market. Don't believe me, check out some of the examples below. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Winograd

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

The only aparrent notability of this subject is her political ambition but, per WP:POLITICIAN, unelected candidates are not inherently notable and redirection to the relevant election is appropriate. In the absense of any other notability, and with no target for redirection that I could find, Delete seems to be the only option. I42 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's never been elected, has lost election twice. It is cool that she's trying again after two defeats, but she doesn't meet notability. -WarthogDemon 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I would be OK with a redirect if she were a candidate in a general election, but she is not. I'm not certain if there is a precedent for redirecting primary candidates to the seat they are attempting to win (i.e. California's 36th congressional district). Location (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they haven't been elected, what's the point of having them if they haven't done something controversial? Old Al (Talk) 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as no "significant" direct reliable sources can be found for the subject. She receives only minor if any verifiable local press because sources have to or should list all candidates in the race to ensure fair politcal coverage. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Strickler

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

Non-notable author. Only source of information is his own site. No awards, no real recognition here. -WarthogDemon 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until ANYONE has done anything notable, they shouldn't have an article. Old Al (Talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any references via a Google search that demonstrate this person passes WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. His one book is #4,561,897 on Amazon, so I doubt many people have taken notice of his work. Of course, I'm willing to change my mind if someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 12: The Golden Tree

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree, fails notability criteria at WP:NBOOK. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Varghese Palakkappillil. Shimeru 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palakkappillil

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

Non Notable family name. Arjun^codename024 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We had discussed about this article once and came to a conclusion to keep this article. Interestingly this article is again nominated for deletion by the same user Arjun! There is nothing wrong with the article. There are enough References and External links. It is a prominent family name in Kerala, India and is worth keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.129.40 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This user has made no other edits apart from the edits on this page on en.wiki.

That's strange. I do not see any deletion discussion for this article before, that you refer to. Any links? prashanthns (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.129.40 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun is perfectly entitled to nominate the article here at AFD if a WP:PROD or WP:CSD nomination has been declined. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dint realise that it was a contested PROD. No issues on nomination, of course. prashanthns (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Undoubtedly. Per conclusions reached at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames it has significant history other than just history and genealogy. Needs good sources and improvement, definitely not a delete. prashanthns (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another important aspect to be considered while you search for Palakkappillil in the internet. This family is known also by the names Payyappilly, Payapilly, Palackapilly etc. Thus it can be spelled differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.130.47 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also turns up so many internal hits within WP. prashanthns (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as a name page, or merge to Varghese Palakkappillil. At the moment, the article states that it is about the family rather than the name. To keep it as an article about the name, it would help to demonstrate notability if there were at least two persons with the name who were notable enough to have their own articles. Until then, merge and redirect. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there is any need to rewrite or merge the article. The family is more noted for its history rather than its notable members. And if there is a need of two persons with the name who are notable enough to have their own articles, then it is better to start a new page on Dr. Prasant Palakkappillil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.138.146 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although members of the family may consider it notable, notability is not shown in the references, and since notability is not transferred, I'm not sure the argument holds that because some individuals are notable, the family is also. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because one member of a family is notable doesn't mean that the family is notable. 27.57.130.74 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The user has made only one other edit apart from this on en.wiki.

Redirect to Varghese Palakkappillil. There is no indication that this surname is notable or there is anyone else notable with this surname, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. --Pink Bull 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Environmental issues with coral reefs. Shimeru 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to Coral Reefs In Taiwan

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

POV content fork of [[1]] WuhWuzDat 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ although the topic should be covered by WP. The title is wrong and the topic could be covered by an Environmental issues with coral reefs or Environmental issues in Taiwan article (well both actually). If the level of development of the topic improves a standalone article can be written. Note that there is an Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Environmental issues with coral reefs now that I have split that article from the coral reef article. A redirect is not necessary, hence the delete request. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Environmental issues with coral reefs until the subject is expanded beyond stub status, as suggested above.--Pink Bull 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. O. Mbadiwe

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

Unsourced biography of a non-notable person, full of WP:PEACOCK terms. bender235 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While I agree with the nominator that the article lacks sources and is terribly written, these aren't valid reasons for deletion. Searching sources above, Mbadiwe seems to have been quite a prominent political figure in Nigeria in the 1950s and 1960s. This source lists him as leader of the federal parliamentary party. Covered also in this academic article. A quick search of google books throws up numerous sources which establish him as Minister of aviation and communications. National government ministers are certainly notable. Valenciano (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - the problem here seems to have been caused by this edit likely a copyvio, which added all the fluffery. I've gone back to the previous good version of mid-Feb and added refs, which wasn't hard as there are well over 600 of them on google books alone. Valenciano (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep after rewriting. It's usually a good idea to be sure before describing someone as "a non-notable person". Nominator was correct only to the extent of describing the article as unsourced, and User:Valenciano has done a great job in rewriting and adding sources [2] is a book filled with info on the man. One sentence from the version that was nominated-- "At various times KO served this country as Minister of Communications, Minister of Aviation, Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Minister for Trade, Personal Adviser to President Shehu Shagari on National Assembly Affairs, and the first and, so far, only ‘Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’ of the Federal Republic of Nigeria'"-- should have been enough to describe why the author considered the person notable. Mandsford 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Garikow

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

Based on "personal interviews" by User:Smnesbit, which makes the entire article WP:OR in my opinion. bender235 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are personal interviews. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Glenn

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

Provided references are either articles written by the subject himself or imo not establishing notability because of their debatable reliability. Nominating to discuss the notability of the subject and the reliability of used references. — Zhernovoi (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hefty number of sources, but none of them showing he's done anything to pass notability guidelines. -WarthogDemon 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Notability is not verified by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. In recognition of th excelletn work done to improve the article nd establish notability through improvement of sourcing, I'm withdrawing this nomination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Borbély

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

Unsourced BLP. Although it benefits from a grandfather clause, I question the subject's notability HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RegentsPark (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep Numerous news articles quote him, including one that mentions he was the team captain for Artmedia Petržalka. Definitely notable. Obviously needs some sources and more information in the article itself though. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the new information being added, there's no doubt this player is notable. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep - Article is about a record international football player from Slovakia who has captained a club through the UEFA Champions League group stages. I've started to flesh out the article a bit (it needs plenty of work), but deletion would be irresponsible. Jogurney (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Liddiard

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

Notability concerns. Author has at best (and it's impossible to tell if they refer to the author) two passing mentions in Google News, nor does GN bring up any reviews of the book the author is most known for. The book and a few other works of the author do exist on Google Books. Amazon.co.uk lists the book (rank around 200,000) and does note minor coverage of the book (but not the author) at "The Bookseller" ("The only tag rugby book on the market. A good mix of rules, principles and practical activities - all explained with reference to the National Curriculum when necessary." The Bookseller (9th June 2006)). Unsourced for nearly three years. Joe Decker (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Couldn't find evidence that her plays have been reviewed by major periodicals. IF that were so, that might swing me over the line Vartanza (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches indicate that subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--Pink Bull 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Population on Environment

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

Non-notable essay; contested prod. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is, it violates WP:V and WP:RS. I can see a legitimate article on this subject being created, but this isn't it. Location (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 03:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Haldane

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

Disputed PROD - No ref's supporting any of the claims to significance - I cant find anything on GNews - as a Non-Notable person fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Codf1977 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately does not pass WP:N, in my opinion, or WP:MILPEOPLE. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Consensus seems to be that a Silver Star by itself would be not enough (though I disagree with this), but being depicted in both With the Old Breed and The Pacific satisfies significant coverage, in addition to having an award named after him. However, the article is in poor shape, especially in referencing, and that would need to be cleaned up. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pacific satisfies significant coverage. He played a significant role, and moreover sounds from 'With the Old Breed to be a gentleman and leader of great character who should not be lost to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcoop (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - a Silver Star, major TV Movie character, sounds notable to me. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. He died in battle in 1944, so Ghits won't help one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours. Not only is he portrayed in a TV series and mentioned in detail in two WWII books, but he was also known for being captain of his high school football team and received a lot of local press and mentions in national press at the time - and the Associated Press wrote about him becoming an assistant coach. The article is now cited to the hilt; I'm not sure why the nominator couldn't find any hits in Google News as I found plenty. Do note that he was commonly known as Andy rather than Andrew, but you would've had to read the sources to know that. Fences&Windows 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For most of the above reasons, as well as having a Sea Scout vessel named after him. Seaphoto^Talk 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 03:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Villagomez

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

Minor blogger lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support "non-trivial" coverage. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object, http://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+villagomez+saipan Subject appears in newspapers and other sources. Popular last name should not be negative factor in deciding GHits / GNEWS Tetricus (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of the 173 hits, most are blog hits that do not meet the criteria in WP:RS for inclusion. The rest are "trivial" mentions of his name. I am not sure what you mean by the statement, "[A] Popular last name should not be negative factor in deciding GHits/GNEWS." ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hits are from a newspaper, www.saipantribune.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.111.162 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hardly, try only 4. ttonyb (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more like 300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.185.77 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is rather impossible since for the search --> "angelo villagomez" saipan <--, there are only 175 Google hits. Regardless, they are trivial in nature. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does [not] appear to originate in sources deemed reliable, thus subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.--Pink Bull 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. You contradict yourself in that comment. If the sources are reliable, the subject meets the guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.162.221 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended my comment consistent with my intention. Thanks for pointing that out.--Pink Bull 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are New York Times and MSNBC not reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.162.221 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is not that they are not reliable, it is that the coverage of the individual is lacking. He has a brief quote in the articles about the subject of the articles. That is not coverage of the individual nor does being quoted talking about another subject make him notable. ttonyb (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Tonyb1's point, Villagomez may have received somewhat significant coverage in sources not deemed reliable, but the coverage he has received in sources deemed reliable (like the NYT and MSNBC) have apparently been nothing more then off-hand mentions. Perhaps an article can be created on "Friends of the Monument" or on the general environmental situation in the Northern Mariana Islands. Then, perhaps information on Angelo Villagomez can be merged there, if deemed appropriate.--Pink Bull 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. undoubted copyvio from the show's web site. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Park characters

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

A list of characters in what is so far just a pilot episode of an uncommisoned series seems somewhat unnecessary. At best it should be merged with the main episode page. magnius (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll put it as a violation of WP:FICT--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised the main article hasn't been nominated for deletion. The show has not been picked up for full production, nor has there been significant media build-up that I can see. Fails WP:FICT. Movementarian (Talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further details, I have discovered that all of the text is a direct copy/paste from this official BBC site. Have nominated for speedy deletion. magnius (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't appear to be anything significant to merge that isn't already in the Yeshiva Toras Moshe article. Shimeru 03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosheh Twersky

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

Israeli rabbi, search (news, books, scholar) produces a woeful lack of sources, insufficient to establish notability. I anticipate a number of editors will rush here proclaiming he is a "gadol" (a "great") -- but I suspect we won't see anyone producing sources to substantiate those opinions. As best I can tell, the only raison d'etre for this article is his lineage, on which see WP:NOTINHERITED. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in line with WP:CSD#A7: "An article about a real person, ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." --Qwfp (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, this article does make a plausible claim (running a seminary). However, the real problem is that there are no substantive sources that support the claim and demonstrate its notability. In this sense, this article is actually quite similar to the one for Tzvi Berkowitz, where the references are similarly irrelevant (this one is typical). I will point out that the AfD for that article was inexplicably closed as "keep", so this one may again surprise us. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I read it as saying his wife runs a seminary, a plausible claim of notability for her, but not him. --Qwfp (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point – I took it as "His wife is the daughter of Rabbi Abba Berman, the late rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Iyun HaTalmud, and (he) runs the Hadar Seminary for Women in Jerusalem" – either way, I think we agree on the disposition of this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This person is not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi David: You are not applying the policy of WP:NOTDIR correctly in this case simply because there is no other way to look at the subject of the Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty, because they are, er, a famous rabbinic dynasty, as is well known and not disputed in the Torah world or among Talmudic scholars. See also Category:Hasidic dynasties where fame and positions are only inherited dynasty-style and that in turn does make them notable. That's just the way it works in the Haredi and Hasidic circles. This is a case where Wikipedia rules and policies run counter to the reality and facts of a serious subject in Judaism. Perhaps in this case you should go by WP:IGNORE that sometimes also works better than other rules. Hopefully you are well-acquainted with this subject -- and rabbinic dynasty -- and family before you dismiss them all. IZAK (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above, Notability is not inherited and WP:CSD#A7. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and if not, Merge and Redirect to Yeshiva Toras Moshe where he has a major position in the yeshiva world. Let's be sensible and fair and not shoot Wikipedia in the foot and deprive it of important information (see the chart Mosheh Twersky#Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, you can't chop of "branches" based on mis-applying Wikipedia rules). This is a {{rabbi-stub}} that needs time to evolve. More input could have been requested from Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM, some may have been up to the task of improving this stub. While many famous rosh yeshivas (deans of Talmudic academies) and maggidei shiur (Talmudic lecturers) do not have enough PR and stuff written by and about them, they are nevertheless notable in the Torah world especially of Haredi Judaism. He holds a serious position due to his Talmudic skills and status and not just by dint of his "inheritance" where in any case, especially in the instance of the Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty he is very notable, one of very few senior lecturers in Talmud. The nominator needs to be very carefully how he applies WP:NOTINHERITED because it can be just as easily applied to the likes of Prince Harry of Wales and Jenna Bush etc etc etc who have done nothing but are purely the products of "inherited fame" and nothing else. IZAK (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the same sort of special pleading you've floated in other, similar AFDs, like for Tzvi Berkowitz, which essentially goes: if you're not jewish, you can't possibly grasp the notability of (subject name here), so you should just believe my testimonial that this person is indeed notable, even though there aren't any of your wiki "sources" that demonstrate my claim. The Berkowitz case earned a nonsensical verdict of "keep", even though quite a number of people, including myself and David Eppstein pointed out that there were 0 WP:RS, but rather only random web flotsam. This article has precisely the same problem, which is why Nomoskedasticity brought it here. The second part of your speech is nothing more than WP:WAX. If you have substantive reliable sources, please add them to the article so we can all have a look. It would certainly compel folks, including myself, to consider changing their !votes. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Agri: Firstly you choose a very poor example of so-called, ahem, "random web flotsam" when it is actually the opposite, an excellent example of a grouping of America's senior rabbis who deal with Orthodox Iranian Jews and it's an affiliate and inherent part of the prestigious Ner Israel Yeshiva in Baltimore. So you show that you know nothing yet again about this subject by choosing to denigrate the website of an important Iranian Jewish religious project in the USA headed by an elite group of Orthodox rabbis and Rabbi Tzvi Berkowitz is one of them. Honestly, there is no need to get so worked up. If attacking me (violating WP:NPA) makes you feel better go ahead, it has nothing to do with the subject before us. I came across this article today and looked at it dispassionately. I have no qualms in nominating articles about rabbis for deletion or merging, I can back that up, I have done it and and I do it. At any rate, why are you dragging the Rabbi Tzvi Berkowitz AfD verdict in here? It was obviously kept on its merits. Not all articles need to have Harvard or Oxford level sources backing them up, especially articles about living Talmudists who are doing their job, are very notable in their field, hold impressive positions in specialized schools, in this case elite yeshivas of note (and there are few of these around I assure you), and any article starts with the assumption that the editors and users creating it have some knowledge of the subject, that is the way Wikipedia was built up and written for a long time. Feel free to ask for sources or to learn how such men are notable, but to run in and literally attack them and the editors who wrote the articles, as well as myself for simply trying to explain the subject matter is unscholarly, useless and counter-productive. A WP:STUB does not have to have sources, it needs to be built up. What don't I get? After all, this article/stub is not about the janitor or cook or fixer-man of the ruddy place, it's about one of its senior Talmud lecturers, a rarity that requires specialized education to attain and sensitivities to appreciate, like appreciating forms of art. Hope I am making my point rather than being attacked for defending what is obviously important to people in this field. IZAK (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes yes: reply to substantive criticism with more pleading and try to reframe as WP:PA. I think a quote by David Eppstein from the Berkowitz case is particularly apt here: "I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor, and I was unable to find much better in a Google news archive search. So I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion." So, in other words, web sites and testimonials aren't acceptable as sources here. Circumventing this fact, as you've proved so adept at doing, tends to devolve all of wikipedia into a "superset of facebook". I now repeat: can you please cease further pleading and just furnish any substantive, reliable sources that would support this person's notability? Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Izak, thanks for confirming my prediction that we would see keep !votes but no sources establishing notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nomo: So far, I'm the only one who said anything about "Keep" and even so I suggested it may be worth it to "Merge and Redirect" to Yeshiva Toras Moshe the yeshiva he is a senior Talmud lecturer at, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. And yes, a senior lecturer in Talmud at a major yeshiva is a rarity and worthy of some biographical mention in an encyclopedia that wishes to include personalities based on the input and discretion of editors who know something about the subject. There are no doubt many Imams, Ayatollahs, vicars, bishops, priests and holy people of all sorts who are around, that would not easily be removed for fear that their editors would pounce, so it's all very well to pick on these easy soft targets, rather than starting sensible discussions with editors at WP:JUDAISM who may have more input. What is illogical about this? IZAK (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Hobson Guthrie III

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

Contested WP:PROD that fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The only claims to notability are the criminal charges and the fact that he is from a wealthy family. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is substantiated by coverage in multiple major media sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E, person is only notable for this one event, no coverage for anything else. TN X Man 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. One criminal act originated all the news coverage, which ceased soon after the event. --Pink Bull 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Norwich Airport G-OBWD incident

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

Not in the slightest bit notable. There were no injuries and the aircraft was not damaged at all. YSSYguy (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not at all notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a non-notable news event. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I PRODded this article and the PROD tag was removed a few hours before the seven-day time period expired, by a User who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry less than an hour later. A few days ago I opened a discussion on the WP:Aviation Talk page on the basis of my belief that this article did not need to go through AfD due to WP:SNOW. A couple of Users suggested the incident might be notable for various reasons. One User suggested that the aircraft was carrying the Norwich City football team after its win over Bayern Munich in the UEFA Cup, however that match took place three weeks after this incident. The same User characterised this as an accident, but the AAIB categorised it as an incident; as noted above there were no injuries and there was no damage to the aircraft at all. Another User suggested that the incident might have led to the concrete segments of the airport runway being re-grooved; if this is the case then I suggest that this warrants no more than a one-sentence mention in the airport article. It certainly does not deserve mentioning in the aircraft article. YSSYguy (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user who mentioned Norwich City FC was me. The actual phrase I used was If I recall correcly. It looks like my recollection wasn't 100%, although the incident did occur at around the time NCFC beat Bayern Munich. My !vote is posted below. Mjroots (talk)
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish that the aviation project people would write an article called runway overrun or runway excursion, the second of which currently redirects to runway. The vast majority of those would fall under the category of "breaking news" with no historical notability. We don't have quite as many of this type of article creation as we used to, but the overruns don't really have a place where they can go. Mandsford 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merged pre Delete I have merged it into the Norwich International Airport article and so the page can be deleted Chaosdruid (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on that one. Generally, most of this stuff can be merged somewhere, and the airport article is good. Concerning an article about runway excursions, I could go on and on, perhaps too far... Mandsford 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone else has deleted the info from the airport article as not notable, an edit I agree with and one I had already done just prior to PRODding the article in the first place. As I said above, IMO at most this deserves a single sentence in the airport article if the incident led to the grooving of the concrete part of the runway. The runway was 6,043 feet long, of which the last 837 feet was concrete. According to the AAIB report the aircraft was fast on approach and touched down one-third along the runway, the crew were less-than-assertive in slowing the aircraft down, and hydroplaning was not a factor. The AAIB also noted the lower friction of the concrete segement of the runway compared to the ashphalt section; the investigators also calculated that the aircraft was travelling at more than 60 knots when the aircraft entered the concrete segment. This is why I believe that the only basis for notability is if the incident led directly to the concrete being grooved, in which case something along the lines of "The runway surface was grooved in [year] after a BAC 1-11 overran the runway on 29 September 1993" would be sufficient IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commentI had reincluded it very late in the day before continuing investigation into the other incidents involving overruns from the 09 end of 27. These were under differing circumstances and there is not much detail avilable to hand from internet searches on 27 work at the 09 end. The only info readily available was to tarmacing of the 09 end in 2005. As long as it is in the history it can easily be reinstatd if anyone can find more evidence that any or all of these led to resurfacing or regrooving. After 4 hours on it this morning I, for one, cannot find any further info on that.Chaosdruid (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable incident. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scindia alumni (scindian)

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

Delete No evidence of notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted, unreferenced. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Empty Buffer - normally I would remove the names on such a list without an article or reliable source attesting to notability as per WP:NLIST, however doing that in this case could be seen as trying to distort the AfD processes, however if it turns out to be kept I will do that. Codf1977 (talk)
Delete. Such information should be organized using categories. I've created a new category Category:Scindia School alumni. utcursch | talk 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly useless title and redundant since there is a new category; the original author had been reported for vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InTopSens

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

Previously speedy deleted page, that even though has had a lot of work on it fails WP:GNG.

The ref's given are as follows :

GRACE Related Projects: InTopSens - is at least part written by the article's creator and member of the project.
Quadriga Newsletter - the project is mentioned only in one 5 line section in a 7 page newsletter.
Blood poisoning bacteria identified faster has the feel of a press release.
Farfield to Join New Research Consortium called "INTOPSENS" also has the feel of a press release.

As such feel that the coverage does not meet the WP:GNG, with regard to being both significant and independent. Codf1977 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as per nom, despite the hard work on the part of the nom and the author to make this article work. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of a long-running spam project aimed at inserting promotional articles on European research projects. A typical such article will be loaded with unhelpful jargon and vaguely described in terms of their "forward looking" aims, rather than actual achievements, as is this one: The consortium aims to develop a compact polymer and silicon-based CMOS-compatible Lab on a Chip sensor platform which is based on two label-free biomolecular recognition optical sensor technologies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this research project. Joe Chill (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is insignificant and hasn't given anything for the biomedical sector. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mourad Jensen

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

My original PROD stated "Possible non-notable person, search at the most is only passing mentions." but IP removed it yesterday. Did a gSearch but could not find any independent reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A7 candidate. There is no assertion of notibility and no reliable sources provided or that I was able to find. Movementarian (Talk) 11:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I can find is a newspaper story quoting him as a university student learning Arabic [3]. That's very far from WP:PROF or any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Raju

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems that the issue is the language of the references, as the nominator has marked three Estonian-language sources as "failed verification", while in fact, two of the sources do not fail verification in any way (third is a blog post). I have no opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but it seems that the event is pretty widely represented in press (Google News Search) - and marking valid sources with "failed verification" to nominate the article for deletion seems... not right. --Sander Säde 13:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Failed_verification/doc:

"Use this tag only if a source is given, you have checked the source, and found that the source says something other than what is contained in the text, or for whatever reason is illegible or unreadable."

This tag is also the tag {{Not in citation}} and {{Not specifically in source}}. I looked at the sources and did not see anything to back up the article statement. Please recommend me an alternative tag to use, if you wish. jmcw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly failed verification with Postimees and MMA.ee? Both say what the article has. --Sander Säde 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on [4], I do not see the statement "It is the largest mixed martial arts promotion in Estonia and one of the largest promotions in the Scandinavian and Baltic regions." When I click on [5], I do not see the statement "Almost one thousand spectators were present." jmcw (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even attempt to use an automatic translation? We do not require sources to be in English - we prefer English sources, but if there are no English sources, all other languages are perfectly acceptable. If you do not understand the language of the source, then that is not a ground to say that the source failed verification. --Sander Säde 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources: I do not have to translate non-English references. jmcw (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the guideline. Nothing in there says that if you are unable to understand the source, then it becomes invalid or unverifiable. If that would be so, then we would have to throw out half of the Wikipedia, if not more. Please remove now the failed verification tags from verifiable sources and be far, far more careful with such tags in the future. --Sander Säde 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate these references into English. jmcw (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: 1, 2. --Sander Säde 13:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have added them to the article and removed the tags. jmcw (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found some MMA notability guidelines at MMA notability. Based on those, this organization is not considered notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two aforementioned articles fail to show any notability. One is just a list of results fron an event, which WP:N clearly says in non-notable. The other is a list of rules, clearly another reference showing no notability. Also, this organization is not considered notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Juhas

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

Non notable actor, fails WP:Bio. Yoenit (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I put this at AFD instead of wP:PROD because I expected the subject of the article would object to its deletion. However, he just posted on my talkpage, stating he thinks the material should be deleted as well. So if any admin wants to move this to a proposed deletion that is fine with me. Yoenit (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches reveal a lack of significant coverage.--Pink Bull 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Josy

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

Nonnotable actress; her IMDB listing shows only 5 bit parts. Also appears to be an autobiography. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — could not find significant coverage to establish notability of the subject per nom an WP:ENT — Zhernovoi (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no independent sources to show notability. Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the article prettier, but the individual fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. This article is waaaay TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find any reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Tampa

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

Per WP:MUSIC, demos are generally not notable. Demos might be notable with substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to locate this coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that there are another 2 articles for demos by this band created by the same user recently and a 3rd article has been around since 2007 which oddly is the only other one up for AfD, If that is deleted then I suspect the these 3 other ones should be also. In the mean time I have tagged the cover image as missing a fair use rationale. --Wintonian (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 04:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - demos are not usually notable and I could not find a source to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm remaining neutral on this as I agree that this and some of the other Death demos are not widely covered in any sources. My main concern all along is that the demos Reign of Terror, Mutilation (especially), and Infernal Death have been noted, whereas the others were far more rare, even in the heavy metal tape-trading frenzy of 1983-85. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable demo tape. The fact that Death demos are not widely covered in any sources pretty well shows that this isn't notable and it's original research. If it were covered somewhere, a link could be added to the article about the band. Mandsford 13:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commander in Chief characters

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

Despite the title of the page implying it might be similar in form to other series' character lists, this instead is a massive list which is solely comprised of names with no descriptive information whatsoever aside from grouping by type. The notable characters (i.e., those not merely appearing for half a second or not at all) are adequately covered in the main article's character section. WCityMike 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the series is notable, this list can be trimmed and sourced. No reason for deletion given--AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept, Rename to List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters, since a commander in chief can be described as a character, and this could be confused with a list of commanders in chief who are characters. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A rename to List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters would be inappropriate. Disambiguators are only added to article titles to distinguish them from other articles, not from other potential articles. There is no list of commander-in-chiefs, and even if there was, there would be no need to rename this article; a link to the other article would simply be added to this one in a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would match the title of the main article, Commander in Chief (TV series), which is something that is done, regardless of the existence of other articles. And we do rename things that are infinitely confusing. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Orange production in Brazil should not be renamed Orange (fruit) production in Brazil so that it matches the main article Orange (fruit). There is no need for this kind of conformity; it unnecessarily complicates the title. Neelix (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is insufficiently precise to be sufficiently useful as a title. Since the actual title of the program is not "List of Commander in Chief characters" this is a descriptive and not a prescriptive title, so it needs a better name. Since "Commander in Chief" is a rank, and many characters have had that rank, this could easily be interpreted as a list of characters that have a military rank called "Commander in Chief". If you don't like parentheses, how about List of characters from the Commander in Chief television series , which is descriptive and uses an English language phrase, instead. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "List of x characters" is the established title format for lists of fictional characters; List of characters from the Commander in Chief television series is not an appropriate title because there is no semantic difference justifying a variation in title format. If there was ambiguity with another article, the version with brackets (List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters) would be correct, but there is no ambiguity with another article. Even if there was a list of commanders-in-chief, the word "characters" and the fact that the word "Chief" is capitalized avoid the ambiguity. The current title is fully acceptable. Neelix (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a script error when I was relisting this debate. It seems to all have gone through properly, but if something is screwed up, apologies. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs clean-up, but that is not a reason for AfD. The name did confuse me at first, but that is an issue for the talk page, not AfD. Movementarian (Talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I think that article talk pages are a huge waste of time— if you want to hear yourself talk, go to a talk page, if you want to talk and be listened to, come here— the article itself is a legitimate spinoff of the article about the television show, since political dramas (like The West Wing and 24) often have a large cast of characters. It has plenty of discriminating information in showing who does what (White House aide, U.S. Senator, etc.), and it's better than most of these. For a real piece of crap, see List of Married... with Children cast members, which could take a few lessons from this one. Mandsford 13:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. On a personal note, I'm not entirely convinced by those sources: #1 is by somebody connected to the organization (thus not independent), while #3 is an encyclopedia that may strive to be comprehensive (thus not an indicator of notability). Further sources are probably needed to avoid a renomination in a couple of months. Shimeru 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The White Eagle Lodge

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any reliable source to esablish notability. Fails WP:ORG. Movementarian (Talk) 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only results in a books search are from people involved within the "movement". Can't establish notability based on the web searches I'm finding; they're all written by people connected to it. The best 3rd party coverage I can find is newspaper article from 21 years ago: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rL8LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cVYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7170,394598&dq=white-eagle-lodge&hl=en (This was on my list of "stuff to AfD when I got around to it, so thanks for taking the initiative.) Vertigo Acid (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization appears to exist in the real world and runs events and places of worship; I agree that there is not much unbiased material online about it; but while such material may not be a reliable source for matters of opinion about the organization, it does suffice to prove that it exists and has adherents.Ed Avis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that it exists is not a reason for it to have a Wikipedia page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is challenging it on verifiability grounds Vertigo Acid (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article probably needs a thorough going through as it does read more like an advert for the organisation rather than an encyclopedia article. However, coverage in books about spiritualism would indicate it is notable. See [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] is just a sample from the book results I found. - Whpq (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources listed by Whpq appear to establish that this meets WP:GNG.--Pink Bull 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, G4 — non-admin closure. — Zhernovoi (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pusang sawi

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

Nominated to generate thoughts about the general notability of the subject, a “…2010 Filipino film…”. I was unable to find significant coverage to establish notability. — Zhernovoi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hasn't this already been discussed - and subsequently deleted - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusang Sawi? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can close this and place a {{db}} on the article. Kubek15 ^write/sign 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monbukagakusho Research Scholarship Preparation Guide

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

Essentially spam. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 03:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neural gas

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

This page was prodded "WP:N WP:V, orphan, WP:COI", but perhaps better get it discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 842 Gbook hits on "neural gas network" [11], 1800 Gscholar hits on "neural gas network" [12]. The likelihood of false positives on this term is low. Novickas (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a machine learning technique which is still current - not the most common method in existence but still. We just need to find some references showing applications, or suchlike. --mcld (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: according to sources meets WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems pretty well referenced now (since beign AFD). I'd say that is a good outcome of the process :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 05:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sailors at the Summer Olympics

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

No indication of notability, a bolded out of context all caps message doesn't fix the fact there's no real content here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, At this moment we are working on a upgrade on the articles of Sailing at the .... Summer Olympics (example: Sailing at the 1920 Summer Olympics). As spin-off of this, the list of Olympic sailing competitors is checked and redundancy where one person is known under different names during different Olympiads is taken out. The total list of Sailors will be in the end about 12000 names long. Therefore the same construction of setting this up is chosen as e.g. baseball with one main page (without content) and a possibility to jump to the correct letter in the alphabet. Also the subarticles per letter are created. At this moment the list(s) are up to date from 1896 to 1920. As you understand it takes some time to compleet the 30 Olympics.

So, I copied a format used in other directory articles, The list is building up while upgrading the sailing articles, this list is a starting point for alphabetical search. It takes some time to grow to the estimated 12000 sailors (devided over the subarticles.)

I can take the bold text off, but please advice how to address the request otherwize?

Regards, NED33 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the list List of Sailors at the Summer Olympics: Q applies the same with the addition that this is one of the sup-pages that will be filled with one or mor sailors with the last name started with Q. Since sailing is also done in asia now I do know there will be entries .

Regards, NED33 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has inherent nobility as an olympic sport and such lists have precedent in Wikipedia. So long as it is properly sourced, it merits inclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be a work in progress, but since all Olympic athletes would be inherently notable under WP:ATHLETE, it's a perfectly legitimate topic, but the author really needs to take time to figure out what this should look like (like on a user page) before springing it on the world. The flags and the male/female distinction are good, but before you go much further, consider adding things like "1896" or "1920", and--- one doesn't have to be fancy on this-- some symbols to show which persons have won a medal. For that, one could say 1896* for the gold, 1896** for silver, 1896*** for bronze, it's that easy. Yes, I realize that many of these competed in more than one Olympiad, but taking care of it now will save a lot of problems in going back later. I think what may have turned people off is that it's already divided into 26 little sub-articles called List of Sailors at the Summer Olympics: R and the like. Give some thought to it before going further. Mandsford 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable list of people from a notable event. However, the sandbox/userpage should be used first to construct something that's obviously going to take several days to put together. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve this list of notable athletes. Weakopedia (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XECFCx

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

Non-notable band, doesn't meet the general notability criteria or the criteria for musicians and ensembles. Attempt to prod was removed by an anonymous IP without giving a reason. JD554 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete : as nom - also no attempt at explaining significance, No Gnews hits, fails WP:V as it is not sourced. Codf1977 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything that has been said about this band appears to be on self-built networking and downloading sites. The basic paragraph about their history has been copied and pasted wholesale all over the place, such as here. And if this band is still together I suggest they change their name to something pronounceable by non-robots. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Maison

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

Not notable per WP:COMPANY. Only one good source found ([13]). It's possible that the building itself is notable, but that wouldn't make the business currently residing there notable. Evil saltine (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if a famous person visits a small pawn shop frequently, that doesn't make the pawn shop notable. And if my analogies don't suck today, the same can be said here. -WarthogDemon 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza

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

Article about a series of ongoing sketches on Jimmy Kimmel Live that does not prove independent notability by way of reviews or significant coverage in third party sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That or it's a povfork.RussianReversal (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical I-saw-it-on-TV article from Wikipedia's early days. No demonstration of notability, nor is one likely to be found. Mandsford 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: The show is notable, but this sketch isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable sketch. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Serrated Tussock Working Party

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

Non-notable organisation, only reference is primary source from organisation itself and searches have not yielded significant coverage; also orphaned. Could possibly merge useful content to Nassella trichotoma, but a redirect wouldn't make sense. Jwoodger (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of note, (but probably of no consequence) It appears the pages main contributor (before being wikified) was User:Dpiserratedtussock.

Delete - as per nom - no gnews hits - no evidence meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable organization devoted to weed management. I'd vote for Victorian serrated tussock if I lived in Australia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already one of the external links in the Nassella trichotoma article. Someone could profitably incorporate info from the website, but that is Somebody Else's Problem. St Anselm (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As an unsourced BLP, since no sources have been added to the article during the course of this discussion. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are in fact found. Shimeru 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. James Antle III

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

Unsourced BLP. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. GNews, GBooks, and GScholar have enough hits to provide sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this is at AFD - subject seems notable both as a journalist and as an editor. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable as an editor, I guess. As an author, I find lots of stuff written BY him, at notable publications ranging from The Guardian to Politico to American Spectator to Reason. But where is the independent sourcing ABOUT him, that we are supposed to demand as a condition of notability? I couldn't find any. Edward, if you found independent reliable sources ABOUT him (rather than BY him), please cite a few. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moose File System

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

~~Unremarkable~~Non notable open source project. Sourceforge files list shows very few downloads and not a lot of google hits. Nothing to show WP:notability. Article is unreferenced. A similar article was PRODed last year named MooseFS - seems this was set up in its place and was missed at the time. Disputed Prod. Since the prod, a reference to a Polish magazine article in a pdf hosted on the projects own website has been added. noq (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I repeat here what I said before:

1) Yes, the article was PRODed once before. That's, because it was incomplete, I was new to Wikipedia and did not know how to write a proper article. Once I learned about the sandbox I have created a new article within it and left the old one die. The new one has been released out of the sandbox when ready.

2) Sourceforge may not show lots of downloads. Sourceforge page is not the primary download area. Stable releases are downloadable from project official web site.

3) I wonder what makes you think it is an unremarkable project. At the moment there is very few open-source distributed file systems suitable for commercial datacenter workloads. GlusterFS is one. Ceph is great, but not production ready just yet. Lustre does not count, because it lacks some features considered mandatory for datacenter. The same goes for PVFS and Hadoop. There are some others, but they are mostly not worth mentioning - they are either incomplete or in a different category. Im not involved in propagation or development of MooseFS, I am just a user. And I think that MooseFS is currently the most advanced file system in that class - along with GlusterFS.

You are right though that the article is missing some neccesary elements, notably the references section needs expanding. I'll do that as soon as possible. As to the "reliable source", I'm not qiute sure what is considered a "reliable source" when it comes to an open source software project, especially when it does not have academical origins. Anyway I hope the article in Linux magazine is "reliable" enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ales-76 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference hosted on the projects website is unlikely to be enough. My look through google did not find any significant coverage hence bringing the article here. noq (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is hosted on the projects website, correct. But the article is from reliable source and it is not otherwise freely accessible - one would have to buy or borrow printed issue of the Linux Magazine. Hosting articles about a product is not uncommon practice, by example semiconductor manufacturers quite often offer free downloadable issue of Microprocessor report (which is otherwise damn expensive), when it is about their product. There is nothing wrong with that. If one reference from notable source is not enough than too bad, but at the moment I cannot provide more. Hopefully in couple of months the situation will be different, MooseFS just got into FreeBSD ports so I guess the number of users is growing. And by the way, Google shows over 30000 hits for MooseFS. I could expand the article with links to some web resources like blogs and such, but I guess these won't be considered reliable, and in deed the content is often sketchy and unmethodical. In any case, it seems to me that the only thing valid from the original claim for removal is that there is only one reference. I admit that, and I do understand that editors of Wikipedia act on good will, so that the content of every article is backed up by a reliable source. However, I think that the Wikipedia audience has more to loose than gain by removing the article, since era of distributed storage is just coming and people come here to get the picture, to find out what it is about and to see what options they have. Ales-76 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you set google to return 100 results, you will find that while the initial page has thousands of hits, it only returns something over 400. Looking through those nothing stood out as notable. noq (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When did we start requiring that subjects be "remarkable" too? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarkable isn't a requirement, but notability is. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sloppy wording on my part - now corrected. noq (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One source with significant coverage isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment: I think one reputable source with significant coverage would be enough to establish notability of a file system. On the one hand, Linux Magazine is apparently reputable; on the other, the source's author Mariusz Gądarowski appears to be affiliated with MooseFS creators Gemius SA and Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki.[14] Given that I can't read the article, it's difficult to reconcile these factors. And – I also can't find any more sources. --Pnm (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this article to learn about MooseFS, with the benefit of the same NPOV standards that are available for its competitors. If someone is willing to keep the article up to date (one sign of a healthy project), then there is no reason to hide this information. Properly functioning distributed file systems are a rare breed, and the underlying data storage decision is a critical one for an organization; that makes this is a notable and relevant project, whether or not an organization decides to use it. Meanwhile, Pnm discounts Linux Magazine's standard operating procedure too quickly, while also complaining about the language; these are not reasons for deletion. - Rgrant (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this. I'm ambivalent about the deletion. Seems like a useful article, but I can't verify that it meets the "requirements." --Pnm (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability doesn't appear to be proven or provable imo. Minkythecat (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Will That Vanished

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

Author contested PROD, my original concern was "Doesn't seem to pass WP:BK, online sources are only passing mentions." Though the author seems notable, I don't think this one is inheritably notable, not much on Google (although that is not surprising, considering the age) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails all criteria of WP:NBOOK. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Bengalis are known for literary consumption and have huge media coverage for books (much more than other language people). Coverage for such a book (reviews and discussions) almost certainly exists in the offline archives. But regrettably, WP:V gets in the way :-(--Sodabottle (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This probably should be mentioned in Sharadindu Bandyopadhyay, but the overly long plot summary needs to be trimmed. Mandsford 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Aiello

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

Declining speedy - looks like it might make it this time. Let's discuss. UtherSRG (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources given do not establish notability of the person. For example, the five questions interview is about ultra-wideband technology. Thus, he might deserve some mention or citation in the appropriate article, but not his own.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the EETimes article is about him Intervalhistory (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, the EETimes article appears to be reliable and provide significant coverage, are there any other sources which provide significant coverage that aren't already listed in the article? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It still falls short of notability and seems promotional in regards to the subject. --Stormbay (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Only a single reliable source with significant coverage, not multiple sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even after discounting some weak !votes, no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

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

Does not seem to be a notable list. 90 percent of the people listed are not sourced, and the nature of this article is purely trivial to me. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take out the unsourced stuff until it can be substantiated, but it's not at all trivial. Most of these people are on here because not only did they claim to be Jesus, they also had followers who seriously believed such a claim of divinity and were perfectly willing to do whatever the person asked-- drink Kool-Aid, castrate themselves, set up armed camps, start a Taiping Rebellion, etc. Mandsford 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate lists but his is a decent merit Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is extremely important to many new religious movements. Sourcing issues are easily fixed. Abyssal (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm clenching my teeth as I say that. Anyone can go around and claim to be Jesus. It's obviously not that hard. What IS hard, however, is to claim you're Jesus and have large groups actually believe and follow you. That takes convincing and since religious movements are notable, if one accomplishes such a thing then I'd say it's worthy of mention. So, even though I'm not 100% convinced this has encyclopedic value . . . I say keep. -WarthogDemon 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I haven't put religious bias into it, and although I don't believe that anyone will make anything of my username, the "demon" hasn't anything to do with Satan. :P -WarthogDemon 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - I agree that the Warthog Demon isn't Satanic, and that the Undead Warrior probably isn't a zombie, either. Like it or not, in at least some cases this claim, however ridiculous it might be, may be the only claim to fame some individuals have. In cases like that, having an article to merge the significant content about them to would be useful. Wholeheartedly agree that the article needs work, however. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Carter. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is really nice for me to use and great! --Zakawer (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to be offense or rude but have you read this guideline about deletion discussions? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course keep the article! It is a list and it is a valid question, the cult leaders on this list DID claim to be Jesus Christ. This isn't a hard bound book on someone's desk and therefore its not as if the existence of this article is burdensome on anyone, even Wikipedia... Lighten up, this encyclopedia only works because people make it work and add information to this growing center of knowledge. The simple fact that this page is being contemplated for deletion shows that like google is turning into microsoft, wikipedia is turning into encyclopedia britannica... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.68 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Helgason

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

Non-notable musician. Singer with two bands, both of which are myspace bands that lack notability. The article overstates the importance of "Emergenza", and no other assertions of notability are made. First band had one EP. Second band has not done even that. Neither band rates a Wikipedia article, and certainly we don't need articles for individual members of the bands. Herostratus (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marginally notable musician. I found only a short profile published by CBC Radio 3. It is not enough to meet WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Notable enough. Notability increasing. Substantial notability imminent. --PEACELOVEROCKNRLL (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, notability increasing? Substantial notability imminent? Could be, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No proof the the musician is "notable enough". Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save+ - Wikipedia's "General Notability Guideline" states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." The are several reliable sources offering coverage on Josh Helgason Abel. He's accomplished much more, rad things, but due to lack of coverage those remain out of this biography. This is not a crystal ball, no, however, he has clearly been covered by reliable sources that are independent of himself and this should satisfy inclusion criteria. Thanks. --PEACELOVEROCKNRLL (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) You may comment as much as you like, but don't put the Save tag on more than one comment, it looks like double-voting. 2) Look at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It talks about stuff like gold albums, international tours, charted singles, two albums on a major label, and so forth (granted there are other criteria). It also says Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save+- Emergenza was and continues to be a big deal. It gathers world wide attention and involves dozens of countries. That's no small feat. It's also substantiated with reliable sources, references. Also, Bob Rock is the producer behind Metallica's "Black Album" and Motley Crue's "Doctor Feelgood" as well as many, many more epic albums. Recording with Bob is also well referenced. Josh stays. Nirvana333333 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for Josh that he has a Bob Rock number of 1, but was-produced-by-someone-who-has-produced-notable-peeps is not a critera. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me how notable Emergenza is. I'm not saying it's not, but I do note that "Emergenza scam" gives 34,900 results, and it appears the "voting" is based on how many tickets a given contestant can sell, so... Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first few rounds in each city are done by fan voting, not ticket sales, (a show of hands that is counted, yes, but a fan vote nonetheless), then each city has it's Finals, which are judged by industry people such as radio personalities or record label folk, and from then on out it's all based on Judges voting, including the finals for each Country, of which their was only one finalist band out of Canada, and then the grand finals in Germany. The Sessions won the judging round for Vancouver, Western Canada, Canada and finally the world (16 Countries of it). Also, working with Bob Rock or this or that isn't a big deal, any of it on it's own, it's when an artist racks up multiple merits of high calibre that they become special and notable. PEACELOVEROCKNRLL (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes done by fan voting, but if your band sells 100 tickets you are going to have more fans there than a band that sells 10 tickets. Herostratus (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, yes. Although, play well enough, write songs well enough, and a band will earn votes from neutral spectators and even fans of other bands. The Sessions received 242 or so votes in Vancouver's semi-finals and I doubt all of those 242 were brought by just them. They were winning crowds over. Also, a band selling tickets / marketing themselves / making fans who will purchase tickets and support them - That proves how serious, legit and awesome a band is. The Emergenza "scam", as haters claim it to be, is set up to weed out the beginners, anti-socials (bad for business), the small thinkers, the bands without fan bases (unproven talent / lack of talent), and the crap. It's bitter bands with loser mentalities, and losing records, who jump on board wagons of "this battle of the bands is rigged" and "this is a scam" and all that. My two cents. PEACELOVEROCKNRLL (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is lacking and most of the encyclopedic and verifiable material regarding him can be integrated into the band's article. Redirecting to the band is a viable option, but since he has played in two this might not be the best. Them From Space 05:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for Stars of Boulevard, and the poorly-sourced article at The Sessions doesn't mention him. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added to the sources and bio for The Sessions! PEACELOVEROCKNRLL (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David William Campbell

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

Available sources on the person relate to activities for the Pirate Party Australia and Exit International, namely by-passing some Internet filter and teaching others how to do it. Does not amount to sufficient notability for an independent biography. Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, amongst other things. Frickeg (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - can't find a gnews hits that are clearly this person - and as such fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brooks

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

notability guidelines, lack of proper citations and third party sources, Seniorpenor (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your claims are unfounded as to me that youtube video is pretty straight forward third party source, and based upon what i have seen from you and others it seems to me and this is my personal opinion that you have a personal vendetta against this person. So my vote no deletion. Sure the article needs a little clean up so i am going to vote to keep.ProTector (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) — ProTector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You Tube is not a reliable source. AinslieL (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't worked in the top level of his sport (FCW is nothing but a farm team). Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of third party coverage. Nikki♥311 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nikki AinslieL (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ainslie is right about You Tube as a source. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We cannot merge and delete for licensing reasons. As there is no specifically-cited information in this (short) article, I am closing as delete; it should be easy enough to add a mention of the program to the main article based on the school's official website. Shimeru 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Management aimed at Asia

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

as per WP:NOTGUIDE, essentially a university program of zero interest to anyone outside this business school. unlikely search term as well. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotterdam Business School. Not notable on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect/merge as "Trade Management aimed at Asia" is a vague term. any useful info I'm sure is in the program's own website. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information and delete would be OK with me. I agree it seems an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced content to Rotterdam Business School and avoid redirect due to vagueness, per above.--Pink Bull 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods. (If you all feel Shanzhai would be a better destination, that works too.) Shimeru 06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese copy

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

Declined speedy added by another user, but clearly this article has major POV issues (which may not quite rise to the level of an attack on the entire Chinese manufacturing industry). The article itself appears to be trying to legitimize that the term "Chinese copy" is notable, but the references all which use the words in order do not use the term as a derogatory noun, but rather with "copy" being a verb. Suggest either a massive POV cleanup, or redirection to knockoff (which itself is a redirect). 7 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fundamental validity of this page should be questioned. The term was not coined by any form of public media nor is the definition of the term appended by any source. The only sources one can see from the page are those of the example's, which do not even mentioned the term "Chinese Copy" on any occasion. Furthermore, judging from the page creator's history, this user has not even edited many WP pages, before creating this one.Ao333 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ghits show the term exists and is generally used in the context identified by the article. GSMR (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article has major POV issues which is why I tagged it. I don't think it should be deleted as the term Chinese copy is quite well known in many circles. It's even defined on Merriam-Webster online. The term Chinese Copycat also appears to be in wide use as well. Vedant (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"an exact imitation or duplicate that includes defects as well as desired qualities" is what the Merriam-webster says. Evidently, the article is largely biased in providing no "desired qualitiy" side to the article. I concede to a major edit, if the page will only contain sources which include the term "Chinese Copy." Otherwise, the article would just be a hoax, defined by people of the Indian ethnicity as both GSMR and Vedant's contribution history shows.Ao333 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your tripe merits a well thought out response. I think a 'lolumad?' will suffice here. I thought you already received your last warning for personal and racial attacks? If only I was allowed to edit war on your talk page like you seem to think you are on Vedant's... oh, phew, good thing I have everything saved here. GSMR (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know I'm of Indian ethnicity? Are you implying racial bias exists? Perhaps I'm mistaken it most but it certainly appears to exist in your case. But then again, what do Indians know right? Apparently they live 10 years less than the average Japanese or Chinese individual and on average have 22% less IQ points. I mean after all the Indians are grouped with the Africans and while possessing 1/6th of the human population only possess 2% of the world's health? Well that's according to what you said here anyways. The internet is such a wonderful tool and I think it helps us really understand each other and co-operate on a myriad of different topics. Vedant (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere Sounds just like "Cheap Japanese knockoff" term used in the 70's 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page; it's ridiculous. I do not even see one source defining the term. And the sources to the examples don't even mention the term! It sounds just like the "cheap Japanese knockoff" as the guy above says.117.85.64.95 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible meatpuppet. GSMR (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you claim that? Just because someone agreed with my opinion?? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. As a general rule, if a person has logged in and registered an opinion, it's given weight by the closing administrator. If a person hasn't logged in, or hasn't registered a user name, then it doesn't really have much effect on the outcome. Ten IP addresses could say "keep" and it wouldn't stop the article from being deleted if that were the consensus of regular contributors. Mandsford 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP's first and only edit is on this vote. That's why I said it's a possible meatpuppet. GSMR (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more sourcing, but what I see so far shows that certain products are described in magazines and other publications as reverse-engineered or imitation of style and then marketed in or by the People's Republic of China. And frankly, I'd like to see an article about things that were described as "cheap Japanese knockoffs" as well, not sure why that would be considered non-notable. It would be one thing if it was the author's personal opinion, but it's quite another if it is something described in reliable and verifiable sources. Mandsford 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article suffered from recentism but the concept goes back to the early 20th century at least (the OED has an interesting Hansard quotation from 1920). I have added some citations and the article may be improved further in accordance with our editing policy. Note also that the nomination suggests cleanup or redirection, neither of which require deletion. The new admin User:7 should please familiarise himself with our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NAD. The article isn't about a particular concept, it's about a phrase, and belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Claritas § 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods. Same concept basically. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search shows ample results. The law of unfair competition and trade-marks, Volume 1‎ - Page 249 Rudolf Callmann, United States - Law - 1950 - 3020 pages mentions the term "Chinese Copy". I read the article and clicked through the links, and the term was used, and still is used for many things. Sorting through sources is difficult, because you get so many results with the words "Chinese copy" followed by the name of something they are copying, as oppose to it being used as a term. Chinese knock-off is also something I see used at times. That country does have people copying every single thing imaginable over there, from Mickey Mouse ears and the back of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, to expensive cars, and aircraft. After being shown around Home Depot, some started their own company in China that sells the same thing, in the same way, and even has people wearing orange aprons like they do at Home Depot. Just part of the culture. Dream Focus 03:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Vedant pointed out, the dictionary even defines it, it used since 1920. [15] Dream Focus 03:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course copying exists in China. The question is (given that it exists in other countries as well — try "Mexican" next? — whether we need a separate article specifically, over and beyond mentions in Counterfeit consumer goods and — I just noticed -- Shanzhai. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Counterfeit consumer goods due to it being a WP:POVFORK and it can be little more than a WP:DICDEF if systematic bias removed. Verbal chat 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect~~/merge~~ to Counterfeit consumer goods or Shanzhai. "Chinese copy" is another term for exactly the same thing; there's no need for ~~two~~three articles here. We could easily make up similar articles for "Japanese copy", "Mexican copy" and so on, but it's all covered by the existing article. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MAD which explains why merger and deletion are distinct processes which may not be used together because that would violate our licensing terms. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've struck out "merge". There's nothing particularly worth merging anyway. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shanzhai, which as far as I can tell covers more-or-less the same concept. The term 'Chinese copy' is sufficiently notable that it needs its own article. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Shanzhai, Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China, or both.--Pink Bull 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I hadn't noticed that one. So along with Counterfeit consumer goods, we have three other articles covering the same ground as this one; there's no good reason for keeping another. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly, racist article with no sources which define the term. A merge or redirect is also possible per the above comments. SnottyWong talk 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term isn't well-defined by good sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Enigma^msg 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Higgins

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

Unreferenced BLP for almost four years. The article was not created in a suitable state, and it has not improved. The article was tagged for WP:PROD last month, but the article creator removed the tag. I agree with Claritas. Enigma^msg 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is weak and insufficiently referenced, but it appears to be substantially accurate, and the subject may be notable under the WP:MUSIC criteria. Here's Higgins' biography at Allmusic.com and a page for his albums at Amazon.com. Deletion is not the best way to deal with this article's problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you like to to show us how this guy meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC with "significant coverage" in reliable sources, if it can't be shown then it is propper that this article be deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any coverage due to noise when using the above find sources, however as with my comment to Metropolitan90 if they can be found will consider changing mind. Codf1977 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Higgins's AMG profile substantiates international touring and continuing historical interest, and there have been several career retrospectives issued in the last two decades, one by the illustrious Ace Records ([16]). A minor figure, to be sure, but no less worthy of encyclopedic attention. I'm using the AMG bio to flesh this paltry article out a bit. Chubbles (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not an expert on jazz and blues so I won't vote, but I agree that this appears to be an article that is more in need of improvement rather than deletion. Unfortunately, these days on Wikipedia and AfD is probably the most useful method of bringing attention to an article that needs help. Maybe the recent and upcoming additions to the article will sway those who are in favor of deletion so far. CHUBBLES, you might want to call for assistance at the talk page for the Wikipedia Jazz Project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with the article being kept if it's improved. I do not know how to go about working on such articles, and even if I did, it would take hours to take these stubs and turn them into something worthwhile. The article wallowed without sources or any content, really, for almost four years. I'm glad that it's being improved now, but it seems there's no motivation unless these articles are sent to AfD. Enigma^msg 22:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the recent improvements. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles's sourcing of the article after the AFD was initiated.--Pink Bull 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Augustine-de-Catherine road

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

Orphan, not notable, no possibility of expansion ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Whether significant coverage can be found or not, there is no indication that this road is any more notable than roads generally. See WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable road, sources are missing and thus there's no evidence of notability. (p.s. Also non-notable according to the proposed policy of roads notability (WP:SRH). Maashatra11 (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you for pointing out that proposed policy that was never brought to my attention before now (and I would have ignored it if it was imposed without input).~~ That is a failed proposal. Roads fall under WP:GNG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's isn't quite relevant now, but why are you saying it's a failed proposal? It was indeed a failed proposal in the past, but there was a second attempt since then, and as for now it's considered an "active proposal", see template:Notabilityguide. Yet again, it's isn't relevant to our present discussion but it's an interesting page nevertheless. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable article from Wikipedia's stone age. I don't think it's even worth a mention in Saint Augustine-de-Catherine itself. Mandsford 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some sort of history can be found for it, it may be notable for a mention as an ancient trail that led to the formation of the village, or something like that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable road. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. If any sourcing is found we can merge and redirect into Ontario Highway 417, which is apparently where this road was once situated. --Pink Bull 20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy and Tom Studios

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

129 hits on Bing. —fetch ·comms 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be accurate and unbiased with reputable, verifiable sources. I subscribe to ToyFare Magazine as well as Wizard and have seen their work and articles about the company appear in the publications many times. Their work for Robot Chicken on Cartoon Network also adds to the company's notability. Through the show, the company's sculpted works appear on cable TV several times a week. StatueCollector (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)StatueCollector —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.33.3 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion (see WP:DEL#REASON and WP:GOOGLEHITS) and has been notified of such on his talk page. Article appears to cite significant coverage in reliable independent sources (most notably ToyFare Magazine) and would appear to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought anyone could infer that "129 hits" means "no significant coverage found". Can't we be brief anymore? I have not found adequate coverage from my web searches, but cannot tell how much is in print. —fetch ·comms 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage in ToyFare cited in article is sufficient to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a side note, Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté was an article nominated for deletion on the basis of ~100 Bing hits that today is of Good Article status and has over 100 citations. Which explains why I'm not terribly impressed by Bing stats being cited as support for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although it is not an acceptable source to site within the article, this page on the company's website shows their work on the cover of ToyFare magazine ToyFare Magazine Cover. It should help to confirm their work as being covered significantly within the magazine. StatueCollector (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)StatueCollector[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Row Dayz

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

No evidence of notability exists for this compilation supposedly released by Death Row. Searching online returns only online retailers that usually state that the album is out of stock. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Milton

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

Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:ENTERTAINER. This and this Google News search provide no coverage. This Google search provides no significant coverage of him that I could find but I didn't go through all 1160 hits. OlYeller^Talktome 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I Googled him and got 32,400 hits. The entire first page are articles related to his movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderwmn05 (talk • contribs) 02:34, May 31, 2010

Can you help me with some of those links please? I've looked for references but I can't find anything that shows significant coverage from a reliable and independent source. OlYeller^Talktome 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several hours after this was sent to AFD, User:JzG redirected the article.[17] With no dis-respect intended toward that editor, his redirect was perhaps a bit pre-emptive, as such a posible outcome is why the article was sent to AFD in the first place. I have reverted the redirect,[18] so that during the course of this AFD the actual article might be examined and/or worked on by other editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly uncredited appearances and a minor part in an independent film. Fails WP:ENT. Movementarian (Talk) 09:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several supporting roles have lead to notability in the past. This is Wikipedia, and we have had fairly low standards. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, does not appear to meet the actor notability standard or general notability standard.--Pink Bull 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album Network Expando Tuneup 24

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. Could not find sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pete Maravich. Shimeru 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maravich

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

fails WP:Notability - non-notable basketball player. Presumably the article was written because he is Pete Maravich's son and he did play at LSU, but only as a bench player, it would seem. Mayumashu (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the notability may derive from his name, there was a fairly in-depth NYT article on him [19] and also found two other articles with more than a passing mention of him. [20] [21]. To me this appears to pass WP:ATHLETE. elgnomo^talk 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would have been WP:NOTNEWS if it had been written in 2004 when the Times article came out. He most certainly does not pass WP:ATHLETE as basketball fans interpret it. Basically, Wikipedia:NSPORT#Basketball describes which professional basketball leagues are considered to be such that their players are inherently notable. Mandsford 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to be enough third party coverage apparent from Google news search. Not a huge amount though. Gigs (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have enough to stand on its own. Should be a mention at the bottom of Pete Maravich -Drdisque (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pete Maravich. Coverage does yet not appear significant enough for a stand-alone article. --Pink Bull 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Records demo

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and complete lack of meeting WP:GNG. Mandsford 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drunemeton

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews on multiple different sites. Remember, not all of these demo's were strictly released on cassette format to unknown labels. Some of them, get re-released and reviewed. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Reviews hosted on Angelfire are not notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not always true either. It all depends on whether or not there is a paid staff. I've seen it before where angelfire links are notable as per the content contained and per the person who did the review. Anyways, The fact that this was re-released on other notable labels makes this AfD a different discussion in entirety. While it may not have made a notable demo album, it did make a notable full length studio album. Remember, not all reviews are in English, and foreign reviews do count towards notability. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage of this demo by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please be notified that the above voter is an IP, not a registered user. I'm not completely sure about the rules on the IP's during AfD, but it would be nice if they would log in to verify someone not voting twice. (not assuming anything, but i've seen it done before) Undead Warrior (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a problem. Codf1977 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Codf1977 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was re-released. So what? It still fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, merge into Graveland, the article about the band.--Pink Bull 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourced information to merge, although those sources could be used to add a mention to the band's article. Shimeru 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goat of a Thousand Young

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This one takes a bit of digging to find sources for. This was also another example of a demo that has been re-released multiple times, on multiple different formats. Here is a review, and the same goes for this one here through Drakkar Productions. I understand that the first one is a low key distribution, however, that does take a bit of consideration. (But I also had the Drakkar link as well) This link describes of the pre-Cacophonous records deal, which this album helped start. (I.e., the album helped get the band signed) I say keep for now. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage of this demo by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, merge into Grand Belial's Key, the article about the band.--Pink Bull 21:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Sound 2009 Annual

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, there is also Ministry of Sound 2008 Annual. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I couldn't find any independent review of this album, or any charting or sales claims, appears to fail the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom. (or redirect to Ministry of Sound) Codf1977 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourced information to merge. Shimeru 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph of the Hordes

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Sources prove existence, but not notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not gone out and got too many sources for this yet, however, it was released on a notable label, being Pagan Records. I know for a fact that most early Pagan releases had and still have reviews, so finding one of this should not be too hard. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being released on a notable label does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, merge into Grand Belial's Key, the article about the band.--Pink Bull 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skepticism (band). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeothe Kaear

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, merge into Skepticism (band), the article about the band.--Pink Bull 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despair (album)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and there is only the most tenuous claim of notability for this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh, tough one here, as "despair" is a pretty common word, but, anyway, I could not find significant coverage of this demo by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources for this BLP is the main factor in this decision. Shimeru 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Converse

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:ATHLETE. Nikki♥311 02:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE. He was crowned WSL World Heavyweight Championship on June 14, 2006 at Indianapolis, Indiana. Inniverse (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Inniverse. --Edward130603 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a Google news search and book search shows no results for Wrestling Superstars Live so can you prove how this promotion qualifies as the top level of the sport and how holding the Heavyweight Championship qualifies someone as notable per ATHLETE? Nikki♥311 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The championship listed is not notable and the article is completely unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. AinslieL (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Ainslie said. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers upon the Grave

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an album article containing little more than a track listing. (Normally I would suggest Redirect to Sepolcrum but the generic name of this article makes it inappropriate.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Third_Day#Early_Independent_Albums. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Time Forgotten

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I don't know if the band's notability (almost 20 years of career, 4 Grammys, etc.) is enough to warrant this article, but in case it doesn't, what would be a good example of where to incorporate this information? Thief12 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response The band's article or possibly a list of demos (e.g. List of Metallica demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Floater discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stiff & Restless

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Erdahl

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines (e.g. WP:BIO). Stifle (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here the article of Norwegian Wiki, coverage in Gnews and art pages. Dewritech (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST, (#3). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in Verdens Gang here and here. Received a literary award in 1980 from the Norwegian Ministry of Culture. decltype (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': Sources show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources help him pass notability requirements. -WarthogDemon 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy for good

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

Queried speedy delete; see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Unnecessary deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Edwards (Actor)

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

Maybe he is an up and coming actor, but at this time fails WP:ENT Codf1977 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Having your name in the credits of a couple of shows is not sufficient.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have had any significant roles yet. decltype (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Graveland#Demos_and_promo_tapes. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Joe Chill is correct about what WP:MUSIC "doesn't say" but that doesn't directly address the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic Winter

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This album only started out as a demo album, and as such, the original article is based around the first issue of this album. However, this was re-released two times, both times being on a very well known label No Colours Records. Guidelines state that this is notable. Also, there are plenty of sources pertaining to this album and it's re-releases. For example Also check on Amazon, No Coulours Records website etc... Undead Warrior (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:MUSIC does not state that albums on notable labels are notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Banner

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

Prod was removed with no reason given. The subject fails to meet WP:PORNBIO/GNG guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes PORNBIO with her AVN nominations in different years. She was just known as Brooke initially for several years. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Nominations in multiple years satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the AVN classifications shown in the reference for the 2005 nominations, the "scene" nominations listed are not considered, by the organization giving the awards, to be nominations for the individual performers. Since notability is not inherited (a musician who plays on a Grammy-winning track, for example, is not automatically notable), these nominations do not satisfy the terms of WP:PORNBIO which are cited as the basis for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to encourage more WP:OSE, but no one is ever "automatically notable", as they must meet criteria for inclusion.... and actually, a musican on a Grammy-winning soundtrack might indeed be found notable if meeting the criteria for ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) found over at WP:MUSICBIO. But of course... the article under discussion is not about a muscian. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes PORNBIO. Hullaballoo's bizarre interpretation of the award is both against consensus from previous AfD and factually inaccurate. Scene performers are listed as award recipients, and referred to as award winners after. Since there is a category for best masturbation scene, I'd really love to hear the argument explaining why that isn't an individual award. Horrorshowj (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not my interpretation. It's AVN's classification of its own awards, and that should be what controls, even if you think AVN's classifications are "bizarre". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing PORNBIO. An AVN award is an AVN award. We do not dismiss a ball player's notability because it might be based upon his team winning a league title. A notable award for a group effort is a notable award, none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Star Soccer League

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

Contested Prod - No Evidence of Notability Codf1977 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - teams from the league are eligible for the US national cup, therefore meeting notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 21:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We generally set a low bar for sports articles, and minor leagues meet general notability guidelines because the newspapers in the member cities give them regular coverage and big or small, successful or failed, they get documented later by sports historians. That doesn't necessarily carry over to individual teams within the leagues, but the NSSL would be notable enough, even if it didn't play in the national cup. Mandsford 14:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing just enough coverage in reliable sources to make me comfortable with keeping this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/smerging/redirecting can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next Limit Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't seem to be a notable company. Their product RealFlow is obviously notable, but notability is not inherited. St Anselm (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability not being inherited is not applicable in this case. The notability of company is inextricably linked to its products and services. So I'd say the company is clearly notable as the creator of notable graphics software used for visual effects that garnered an Oscar. But regardless, press coverage would indicate they are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect. As the author of the ontological proof has indicated, this is a business that has a notable product with genuine cultural significance, being used to create computer simulations of various fluid surfaces in cinema. But this business may not rank a stand alone article apart from its notable product, and the current text is also rank with promotional language: The mission of Next Limit Technologies is to provide cutting edge simulation technologies for a broad range of applications in Computer Graphics, Science and Engineering.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With three separate and acknowledged products this company deserves a separate article. The promotional language is within a quote (an exact copy from the company's website). I have made a few changes to clarify these issues. Pxtreme75 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UMPF

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Majorem Satanae Gloriam

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google shows no substantial third-party coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are finding demo's, and nominating them for the sole purpose of them being a demo album. Remember, Music guidelines do not state anything about demo's being inherently non-notable. It also seems to me that you are going through all of my personally created articles, as all the notices on my talk page seem to be on the same day, around the same time. Try to broaden your search out a bit when searching for AfD candidates. And it would also be better if you do a better Google search, other than just searching for the album name, minus any details such as the band name. (Especially as this album shares the same name as a well known Gorgoroth album.) Undead Warrior (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Undead Warrior, rest assured that it's not just you. Unlike the scorched-earth style of the nominator, many other people around here are much more willing to work with the word "assumed" in the WP guideline on demos, which in my book calls for flexibility whenever merited. See many of the discussions at list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of what the nominator is doing. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Google shows nothing substantial about this demo. You are mistaken that I am singling out your contributions, as I have nominated hundreds of album articles for deletion, including several that are currently nominated which you did not create. Album articles need to follow notability guidelines just like everything else and virtually all of the articles on demos were unsourced and there were no sources readily available to show that they were notable. The same is true for this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant, reliable source coverage of this demo to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real coverage. [22]. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing about the outcome here, but I am not 100 percent on the whole IP's voting in AfD. It does not sit right with me. (Think about it, a user logging out and re-voting...I have seen it happen before) Also, LibStar, keep in mind that a source, especially in regards to the metal music area, will not always show up in a simple Google News search. In fact, Google News really isn't that good of a search engine to search for musical works. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

provide reliable sources then. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Haider

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

Cannot find sources to verify notability per WP:POLITICIAN. See http://news.google.co.in/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=in&hl=en&q="amir+haider"+-khan+-hoti and http://www.google.co.in/search?q="amir+haider"+-khan+-hoti+-dada&hl=en&rlz=1C1_____enIN342IN342&start=0&sa=N. (I'm sorry, I can't link them. Its not working.) Aditya Ex Machina 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here (scroll down just below the middle) he's mentioned in a section that says: "The state government had not taken any action on the probe report dated June 24, 2008 that had asked for the FIR to be filed against her in the matter. The DIG/SSP officer has now hurriedly dispatched a letter dated March 29, 2010 to the Congress leader Amir Haider who had filed the RTI assuring him of some action on petition as soon as legal opinion is available." Here he's also mentioned. In this source again he's mentioned as a Congress leader from Baribanki. So there are suggestions of notability but more sources would be needed to establish this. Valenciano (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:N, just a politician - No sources indicating him to be an MP or MLA or holdin any other office of importance.Arjun^codename024 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Clifford

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

fails WP:ATHLETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergunner08 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 June 2010

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 12:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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