Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 7

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus for a keep verdict. This also reflects the custom and practice that we keep articles on verifiable villages. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemmalamattam

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

The article was Created with a copy and paste from [1]. Without that, the article has no real importance and without any independent sources.intelati^talk 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found it on google maps as Chemmalamattom, Kerala, India[2]; it even has the 12 Apostles Church.

Keep per WP:NPLACE, as a verified village. I've tidied up the article a little. Edgepedia (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a photo. Unfortunately copyright. Edgepedia (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NPLACE: "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source." It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE; verified village.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogugu

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

No significant third party coverage, the article does not appear to be able to move beyond a stub within the guidelines for article content Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - speedy close please. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP (AfD is not cleanup). Crystal ball arguments about the future quality of an article are weak. (And a cursory internet check reveals a variety of sources covering this topic spanning nearly 100 years.) — AjaxSmack 09:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:AjaxSmack. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article needs cleanup, not deletion.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article needs cleanup then why not actually clean it up instead of just saying something while doing nothing? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I have to spend all of my time trying to keep articles from being deleted. Why don't you try constructive editing and I'll have more free time to do the same. — AjaxSmack 02:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 per the article creator's comment here. While there seems to be plenty of diverse edits, there is not much difference between the version created and the version nominated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Cobb

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

I found no significant coverage for this author and his books appear to be non-notable also. Fails WP:CREATIVE. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG since those sources aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the original author of the article I have no problem with its deletion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Just FYI - Imdb is not considered a reliable source. v/r - T P 01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Boone

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

Voiced a notable character but it's his only role. No sources found. Last AFD was five years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – significance verified per imdb listing. Nominator's rationale of voicing a notable character as the individual's "only role" is baseless. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMDB listings may give some guidance, but looking at the listed credits, I see the roles of a working actor and not much else. This doesn't tell us whether he is or isn't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Per WP:IMDB, you cannot use IMDB as a source as it is user generated content. This is the same reason you can't use Wikipedia as a source. You can use IMDB in the external link section to give the reader an option to find more info from a very popular and informative site. Bgwhite (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can verify that he did voice Mario, but there's no coverage about that in any independent reliable sources. He's mentioned here. But I don't see the sourcing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sources to meet GNG. IMDB is not reliable. Norespectasip (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Has played significant roles in notable productions. And his IMDB entry is a reliable source, since you can confirm any information in the primary source, or at places like Amazon that sell those products which also list the main voice actors. You can also see his filmography at the New York Times website, which is not user generated. [3] Dream Focus 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about other sources? You have to have more than just IMDb. And I found nothing. Also, I fail to see how any of his other roles are "significant" if none of them are recurring characters save for Mario. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Whpg's comments. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Whpg's. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I sympathize with Basileias and Calabe1992, their rationale for keep is not related to the article. Consensus is to delete the article. v/r - T P 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Brown

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

Not a notable person, most of article has no references, needed additional citations for verification for 2 years, books are not notable either Red-necked Grebe (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Red-necked Grebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: User Red-necked Grebe has been deleting major portions of this article without really trying to improve it. The reasons they have come up with have been erratic. This user is a Single-purpose account. See their history HERE. The article, while needing help, concerns a published author. While some may not like the topics, deleting this article is not the answer. Basileias (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was one of the users who reverted one of Red-necked Grebe's nonconstructive removals. User seems to have an issue with the article and therefore decided to nominate it. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete. About 50 citations on GS. Not much for pop-theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Question: I haven't much experience with Google Scholar. Is it possible that with a rather common name like Michael L. Brown, that not all the citations are to the same Michael L. Brown who is the subject of this article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further enquiry: I followed the "scholar" link above and got a page of links that says there are 405 results. They all look like science articles to me, nothing that would be what one might expect from a theologian. Could you post a link to the page of 50 citations that you mentioned so others can see what you're talking about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to trawl through them yourself. The religious ones are easy enough to find. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's a bit of a slog because "Michael" and "Brown" are common names, competes with Michael Brown the FEMA director and other Michael Browns. The user who entered this AFD is a Single-purpose account.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/09/michael-brown-is-an-anti-gay-monster
http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news-old/22059-brownsville-revival-leaders-students-reunite
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/Charisma_Grady_Brownsville.aspx
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-urged-to-wake-up-to-reality-of-glbt-agenda-47244

I agree that the nominator is a SPA, but that doesn't make him automatically wrong. Where are the sources to establish notability? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are six footnotes in the article. Four of them are links to Brown's own websites. The other two are links to Shmuley Boteach's site and truthwinsout.org. None of these are the kind of high-quality sources that are required to establish notability. To be honest, this doesn't even seem close. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No high-quality sources that are required to establish notability, mostly using self as his own reference. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the books are not academic books, and Google scholar hits and measure f=derived from them are therefore irrelevant Looking at the academic ones (to a certain degree, one can tell which they are by the publisher: Zondervan is an academic publisher-- I see he wrote the section on Jeremiah for the Jeremiah-Ezekiel volume (v.7) of The Expositor's Bible Commentary , the standard Evangelical Bible commentary, held as a series in all theological libraries, even non-Evangelical ones--see the catalog entry in WorldCat for the series , [4] and his book Israel's divine healer is also in all such libraries [5]. this is very wide reach for a specialist, and I conclude he is recognized as an authority on the subject within his theological community. work
Weak delete. He seems to have written some notable work as per paragraph above, but references are all self-references and the article is purely promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture

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

Unsourced tangential mentions, redlinks out the ass. Amounts to basically "This has a Cthulhu-like creature in it". The article is inherently OR and synthesis since few to none of the sources confirm the characters as being Cthulhu or inspired by the same. Last AFD closed as delete but inexplicably overturned 3 days later. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, TenPoundHammer's characterization is no longer applicable. Other editors have been doing a great job of paring out unreliable and unsourced information. A number of the entries are now even sourced to independent sources verifying that the Mythos is being represented in those works. Could the list use more trimming? Sure. Does that make the underlying concept deletable? No. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons I articulated the last time around. This is not a list of Family Guy references, but a description of how the works of one author and those who followed him have influenced horror fiction over the subsequent 80 years or so. Notable, referenced, nothing wrong that can't be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real thing--if the subject were of interest to me, I would want this article to exist. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator: This editor has only nine edits, and only three in the main namespace. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "it exists" is not a valid rationale to keep; existence is not notability. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. 13:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete, or clean-up and merge to Cthulhu Mythos. Full of original research and personal opinion of primary sources: mainly sourced to hulu, novels, and personal websites. Dzlife (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge per my rationale at the last discussion (this still appears to be a dumping ground for trivia and original research). Although the article really shouldn't have been renominated so quickly, the fact that it stands out as being poor to multiple editors does not suprize me. If this is merged to Cthulhu mythos it should be done so carefully, to only include important facts and not passing mentions. Looking over the sources cited, hardly any appear to be fully reliable and the material they reference (passing mentions from the book series outside the series) is trivial in nature. Them From Space 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge. Themfromspace's reasoning is well-supported. This kind of material really belongs of TV Tropes, or merged with the main article; Avoid unnecessary splits of content. The main article is not long and could easily support a paragraph or two on this subtopic. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing vote as spent of lot of time finding sources. On closer inspection many have had to go as there were no sources or invalid options (e.g. Youtube), but we will eventually have a nice, tight sourced list. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Blatant disruption per WP:DEL as the nominator seems well aware that we had a discussion for this quite recently. The topic is covered in numerous sources including Religion and popular culture, H.P. Lovecraft in popular culture, The guide to United States popular culture, Icons of horror and the supernatural: an encyclopedia of our worst nightmares, &c. It just needs development from such sources per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent edits, some after but many before this latest nomination, have been doing a good (if still incomplete) job of removing the tangential mentions, as reading/watching/playing a number of the works listed would soon make clear (OK, I realise that actually doing this would count as OR). About half the remaining redlinks seem to be typos, and almost all the rest simply need to have the links taken out. Having said that, the article genuinely needs more work than just removing remaining tangential mentions and redlinks, though this is a very useful preliminary to the work most needed. Firstly, the current references are rarely fully reliable by Wikipedia standards - they might be OK for filling in the occasional fact, but an entire article should certainly not be depending on them. However, there are definitely better sources out there - in fact, I'm somewhat surprised that Lovecraft experts like S. T. Joshi aren't currently getting cited at all. Secondly, the article should not consist almost entirely of lists - a few paragraphs on the development of the influence of the Cthulhu Mythos on popular culture, for instance, could certainly be reliably sourced (though the sources might take some hunting down), and would make connections between a number of the legitimate entries on the lists far clearer. But the article needs improvement, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the discussion above, it is clearly sourceable, so it can be proven to be notable. That being said, now is the time to make a serious effort to rescue it for good. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. One administrator tried to delete it, and like many of his decisions in AFDs, was overturned and had to restore it. That happens a lot for the guy. Anyway, showing how something this notable has been seen throughout history in notable works, is quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is sourced and large enough to justify existance in its own right, not just as a component of another article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the issue, its a major cultural type, and significant in a whole set of literature--a type of literature not to my taste, but that means very little. Father Goose's comments in the first AfD remain valid, and I cannot state it better. P Wilkinson makes some good suggestions for improving the article. I try to avoid commenting on the nom, but I see that this is another in the series of repeated attempts by the nom to remove as many "in popular culture" articles as possible. Given the variability in results at AfD due to random participation, eventually determined efforts like this will succeed, regardless of the merits. Most of us have certain views on what should not be in Wikipedia also, but when we do not succeed in removing a class of articles, we most of us stop at that; nobody can reasonably expect that all of their views on content will be endorsed by the community. Going beyond two successive keeps is unfair and pointy, and this was kept in 2007 and then as recently as June of this very year. Consensus does change, but in the last 2 or 3 years, it has changed in the direction of keeping these articles. I suggest no further nominations of this one for several years at the very least, and not until there is some indication that the community has changed its general opinion. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_3#Disc_3_-_Porky_and_the_Pigs. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Egg Scramble

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

No reliable sources, consists almost entirely of plot summary and of questionable notability. JDDJS (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~List of Warner Bros. cartoons with Blue Ribbon reissues#Reissued cartoons~~ Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3#Disc 3 - Porky and the Pigs. This was the Warner Bros cartoon that first introduced the character of Prissy Hen. While wide review for a 7-minute cartoon short from 61 years ago will be unlikely, the cartoon itself can be sourced to reliable sources and multiple books. A redirect of a likely search term serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a redirect is a good idea. I would've done that from the start, but I didn't think there was anything to redirect it too. JDDJS (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my mind slightly. While a redirect to a list is worth considering, I now think a redirect to Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3#Disc 3 - Porky and the Pigs is where a reader can find contextual and sourced content about this short and others, and as a redirect target better serves to increase their understanding of the topic in a manner that the Warner Bros list target would not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems to be good to me. JDDJS (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchblend

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another (yawn) routine pop music band. If it survives, move it to Pitchblend (band). To most people pitchblend is a slight misspelling for pitchblende = uranium ore. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like a slam dunk A7 to me. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with TPH above, I see no reason to delete the content itself when a valid redirect target exists. Redirect to Pitchblende or Pitchblende (disambiguation). Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not agree with a speedy delete because of the existence of these sources [6][7], which at the least makes this subject worthy of some consideration here. Gongshow ^Talk 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drowned in Sound and All Music cover it. Dream Focus 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. References don't prove notability: one is an album review (every album gets reviewed), Allmusic is an all-inclusive database (that includes even the most obscure acts), and the last one is a self-reference. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of albums don't get reviewed in reliable sources. Many bands are not covered at all by Allmusic, which is certainly not all-inclusive. Neither would be good reasons to discount coverage in any case.--Michig (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I haven't found sources beyond the two listed above, but album reviews are a legitimate form of coverage (not excluded by criterion 1 of WP:BAND), and WikiProject Albums considers them reliable, so I do not see sufficient reason to dismiss them. Gongshow ^Talk 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unconvinced that the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Allmusic, for example, is a useful reference source but an album has to be obscure indeed not to get reviewed. The Drowned in Sound review majors on the album rather than the band. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jones (pitcher)

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

Retired minor league player with only routine coverage, not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS, having never played or managed in the major leagues. Not seeing the WP:IMPACT this person has to warrant an article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Bagumba. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of An Indie Label: Soundtrack

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

~~Disputed PROD. Original reason given for proposed deletion: Content-less listing of a soundtrack for a movie whose article does not exist. Singularity42 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Given WTF's move and substantial change of the article (see below), I have changed my rational for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bare track listing; this could be speedied. Neutrality^talk 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Esham is a notable artist and this was covered by Metro Times. WTF (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus has moved the article to Death of an Indie Label. Singularity42 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given WTF's re-naming of the article, my original deletion rational no longer applies (as WTF has changed the article from an article about the movie's soundtrack to an article about the movie itself.) As an aside, WTF, when an article is being discussed at AfD, it is probably best to raise such a substantial change before actually doing it. This new version of the article fails WP:MOVIE. The sources cited are the links to the actual YouTube video, blogs, and press releases. A Google search reveals no additional reliable sources. The movie is not notable yet. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Esham is a notable artist, and his albums and documentaries are therefore notable. This is going to be covered by many reliable sources, and although whoever added it probably should have waited to make the article, it makes little sense to delete an article that's just going to be re-created in a matter of weeks. It's already been covered by Metro Times, though, so there is at least one reliable source other than those related to the subject. Luvanger666 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput ganpal foundation

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

Contested prod, reason was "no evidence of notability" which I concur with Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor who placed the prod. No evidence of WP:N. A Google search comes up with zero hits outside of WP. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Neutrality^talk 20:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Rajput Ganpal Foundation is well written and quite true. I personally know about this Foundation and many hundred peoples in our country are beneficiary of this Foundation`s work. If you simply go to Google, you put the name of Rajput Ganpal Foundation or Rajput Ganpal, you will easily notice lot of evidences. Even you can phone or find their registeration certification on Governments website www.fbr.gov.pk and track there ( Liaqat Hussain or his CNIC number) with Rajpute Ganpal Foundation, and you will find their registeration certificate. If you need any proof, i can send you scanned email copy of their Registeration certificate too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherryhome (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable by WP standards, the foundation needs to have had received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I re-checked the Google search that I posted above, and while it gets more hits than it did when I posted it, they are mainly mirrors of this site. Can you provide some reliable, third party sources to establish notability? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ORG. Furthermore, article is a complete garbled mess, unfocused, and vanity (3 pics of its founder!). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Lynch

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

Only one fight with a notable organization and five fights overall (fails WP:MMANOT) and also appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:MMANOT. Sherdog shows him with 7 overall fights. Papaursa (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The exact number of fights isn't important, but the fact that he fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT is. Astudent0 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete at 11. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to News

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

Not notable, just a list of unrelated news networks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsourced, and therefore seems to contain orginal rsearch. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 21:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still have no idea what it's meant to be about. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Guma

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

Article is about a footballer who hasn't competed in a fully-pro league or in a senior international match. It also fails the general notability guideline as the player has received only routine local coverage - mostly related to his exploits with the youth national teams. The article makes an unverified claim that Mr. Guma has played for the senior national team, but I researched and found that he has only played in the CHAN tournament - which are not FIFA "A" international matches. He has been called up for two Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers this year, but has not made the matchday squad yet. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plays in top national league (don't know is it fully-pro or not, but it's top). But we need prooflink for his league stats. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY justifies notability only for footballers who have appeared in a fully-professional league, and i can't see Uganda in that list. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I highly doubt that Uganda has a fully professional league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until he plays for his national football team, he is non-notable per WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG as well. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Maycock

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

A painter from England. Unable to find any reliable sources on him. Almost all sources are derived from his Wikipedia page. Unable to find anything about the "Thomas Monnington Prize" in which he has won. The Boise Travelling Scholarship is real. It is around a £7,500 award given to students who have completed a degree at the Slade School of Fine Art. A previous incarnation of the article states that Maycock was at Slade from 79-83. Article states he is an instructor of Art at Dulwich College which the College's website confirms that he is an instructor with a Masters degree. Article has been around since 2006 and the prod was contested way back when. Bgwhite (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dulwich is a leading private secondary school in London btw. No evidence of meeting notability requirements. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No indication of significant exhibitions, or works being held in the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metrology. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical metrology

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

Prod contested. No such field. List is a synthesis of measurements made in medicine. Original research. Aside from some 19th century discussions about adopting metric measurements for reporting medical results, there are no publications on "medical metrology". Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedy deleted. Truthsort (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not so fast~~ (Decided on Redirect, see below) The term actually does seem to be in widespread use, see [8] and ~~[9]~~ and [10] for example. It will take me a little longer to find whether there are significant references in independent reliable publications, but "no such field" is simply wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting second example since Wtshymanski finds it unpursuasive. There are other examples. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be completely rewritten; metrology appears to be the science of measurement as applied to (particularly) the clinical laboratory, but instead of randomly listing a bunch of things that get measured, the article should be about the systematic study of medical measurement itself. Metrology is "the structured approach to the development and terminology of reference measurement systems which, when implemented, improve the accuracy and comparability of patients' results." [11] Give me a few days, I'll work on it and see if it is salvageable. I'll let you know when/if I think it is in Wikipedia shape. Anyone else who wants to help improve it, feel free. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a little wary of a translation of the calendar of a Chinese university as a representation of standard usage in English, or existence of a discipline of "medical metrology". The first article is talking about coordinate measuring machines used to measure medical devices, not one of the myriad of measurements that the list has now, and not really "medical" - one might as well speak of ambulance maintenance as "medical diesel mechanics". I don't know what professors of medicine call measuring a whole bunch of things, maybe just "science" - but nothing shows a science about the *measuring*, not the *measured*, in a medical-only context. I think it's shaky, though there are those who are quick to question my judgement. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metrology. After surveying the literature I don't find enough material to establish MEDICAL metrology as a separate discipline from metrology. I may add a sentence or two about medical applications to the Metrology article. The rest of this article isn't worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking into this in detail; I'm glad I didn't miss someone's 10th edition of "The Standard Handbook of Medical Metrology", or something equally massive.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to metrology as reasonable possible search term. The metrology article can address medical applications and so forth. Neutrality^talk 20:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munch Man

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

Deprodded a month ago with editor claiming that print sources could be found. Ain't nothing happened, so it's time to go or get off the pot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through a lot of research, I found these sources. There may very well be others out there.

Schwartz, Steve (November 1982). "Munch Man". 99'er Magazine: 39. strategy and opinion at http://i51.tinypic.com/iyecyx.jpg
"Munch Man". Personal Computer Games Magazine: 69. review at http://i54.tinypic.com/2yuirso.jpg
"Munch Man". 99'er Magazine: 42. December 1982. states that Quyen Ton of San Francisco, CA, was inducted into their 99'er Hall of Fame with a Munch Man score of 293,970. The magazine inducts three people each month for various games.

I'd also like to note that 99'er ran a full page artwork of the game on page 27 of the same issue, seen here. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the deprodder's comment that the game was well-covered at the time. It's no surprise, though, that few online sources can be found. I'm going to go with Keep since this was one of the TI's marquee titles and one of the more interesting Pac-Man clones. Powers ^T 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the print sources found. –MuZemike 13:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources available. Has potential for expansion. - hahnch e n 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going with delete on this one. I don't think two short articles, even in print, is enough to demonstrate notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a contemporary online review at Allgame help? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It definitely helps, but I'm still going with delete. Given we have only 3–4 reliable sources with varying degrees of coverage, I don't think this passes the threshold for notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3-4 is pretty good for a 30-year-old game, and usually two is considered enough. Powers ^T 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its enough to warrant an entire article. It would likely result in a permastub. For comparison, Parsec (video game) received a 3-page review in an issue of 99'er. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not ideal, there's nothing wrong with an article like this being a stub. The article's chances of expanding are irrelevant to notability, unless keeping it separate hurts a parent topic. I don't believe that is the case here.
Regardless, with the sources, I think it could be start class. There is also the chance that there are further print sources from it's time of release that have yet to turn up. Very unlikely, I admit, but not every piece of printed material has made its way to the internet. I've been quite surprised by the information on older games I've found from buying video game books at Amazon and Half-Priced Books. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think the 3 or so sources we have are enough to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) by admin Jimfbleak - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ulpiano

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

Non-notable individual - I can't find any RS for this individual. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its a resume. Violates WP:NOTFACEBOOK. A7 may apply. Phearson (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Lemons

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing in article or on Google to support WP:Notability. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's had some local success exhibiting in local art shows, and has some local coverage like this, and this brief mention. But not substantial coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with delete mostly because his art has not hit a big scene in Teaxas -- or even exhibited in a smallish but well-known art scene, such as Marfa, Texas. He's attended a workshop in Taos, New Mexico, but so's my late mother. He's not yet there and is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Retro

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

Article reads like a resume and is mostly self promotion. It fails WP:BIO. TM 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Claims of writing and producing hits that have charted on Billboard with no specifics. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. As for writing and producing Billboard hits, there's no evidence given to support those claims. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sedalia

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY in article or on Google. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years now. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a resume website. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Shapiro (author)

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

Contested prod. Interesting company, but this COI article doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR--I can only find one independent third party source (which is cited in the article), and it is more about his company and its products than it is about him. Like I said in my prod, come back in a few years when you're notable. And preferably let someone else write about you. Valfontis (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:GNG. Conflict-of-interest editors on anonymous IPs who do nothing other than remove PROD and maintenance tags doesn't exactly encourage others to clean up the article if it was notable, either. tedder (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published author who does not appear to have been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. The OregonLive reference given in the article could lend a small amount of notability to the graphic novel which is the focus of the article, but is not sufficient to establish the author's notability Jebus989 ^✰ 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable publisher, author not separately notable. definitely promotional in intent.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing locks

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

WP:NOTGUIDE. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of how-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious case of WP:NOTGUIDE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Wright

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

Can find nothing on Google or article to suggest he is more than the average journalist (though very good, I'm sure!) This has been tagged as of doubtful notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tagged for doubtful notability for 4 years. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability not established. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus. There appears to be significant concern that the article was trimmed prior to AFD. In my opinion, a link to a prior revisions is plenty to carry on the discussion. However, there is sufficient concern in this discussion to warrent a close with no prejudice to renomination especially after WP:PAYWALL has been clarified to the nominator. v/r - T P 01:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

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

Subject not sufficiently verifiably notable for dedicated article, which was written by a conflicted editor using original research and citing unreliable sources including blogs, event agendas, conference panels(!?) and/or irrelevant sources. The closest thing to a verifiable reliable source failed to satisfy WP:PAYWALL. Hence I propose:

Delete or Merge with cloud computing -- samj in^out 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC) -- samj in^out 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the comment above is the opening comment by the nominator, not a !vote by an independent editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two other editors had already requested the article be deleted on its talk page so I have referred them to this AfD. -- samj in^out 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't see any distance between this and cloud computing. It might change in the future, but I don't think we're there yet, and more importantly, neither are any good sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn on account of the large deletions carried out by the nominator, just prior to nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I cited the (many) policy violations in the process of trimming back the article, and it was only once I realised there was no meat to it that I nominated it for deletion. -- samj in^out 22:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in July I had the same experience as Sam, working on the article to improve it, realizing there was little there to work on and then proposing on the talk page that we delete it. Based on my own experience, I suggest we assume Sam's good faith in this. Joja lozzo 23:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GF would be a lot easier to assume in such cases if the nominator made such a process clear in the nomination. You may be right (as mentioned, I haven't since had time to read these sources), but Caesar's wife looks a right slapper when these things are hidden. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of secondary sources. I'm not sure it should be merged either. Wait until there's a text book about it - the originator of the article is probably working on one but it needs to be published before we have an article here. Joja lozzo 18:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before !voting, editors might wish to check this version, as it was this morning at four times the size and with nineteen references, before it was drastically trimmed by the AfD nominator. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-voting, pro-delete comment - even in that bulked up version, there were no secondary sources and the primary sources aren't particularly reliable - mostly conference proceedings. Joja lozzo 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double-!vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you claim on my talk page that this is a breach of policy, still don't double-!vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Every reference was removed from the article by the nominator. Per user Andy Dingley, refer to this version: this version to make an objective assessment of the topic's notability. This version has accessible content via the internet, which serves to collectively qualify and establish the notability of the topic. The sources pass General notability guidelines to qualify inclusion of the article on Wikipedia, particularly (per General notability guidelines): "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." and ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every reference removed was accompanied by policy violated (WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:PAYWALL, etc.) so can you please identify specifically which sources "pass" the WP:GNG? Specifically:

Authors blog — fails WP:RS
Author's business? — fails WP:RS (and WP:COI, see also WP:ADVERT).
Gartner note — fails WP:V (per WP:PAYWALL)
Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Irrelevant paper — fails WP:PAYWALL anyway
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Presentation for talk given at a commercial conference — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for conference panel attended by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Possibly relevant paper, refers to different term and fails WP:RS (per WP:PAYWALL
Use of cloud in traditional engineering is unrelated to subject — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Presentation for talk given at a commercial conference — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS

If you're saying that I stripped the article in order to get it deleted then you are both mistaken, but once I had cleaned it up I realised there was so little to it that it may as well be deleted/merged. -- samj in^out 08:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the policy that says all references must meet WP:RS?

We require some RS so as formally to demonstrate notability. We do not require all refs to meet the same standard. In this case, conference papers are likely to be highly illustrative and valuable additions to an article and so should be included, but we may still exclude them from the list of RS because of their lack of independence. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that none of the sources meet WP:RS. -- samj in^out 11:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that can be reason to AfD the article. It is not reason to remove the refs, then to AfD the stripped-out article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - I've voting keep on the basis of a flawed nomination, which infers there is some big principle violated called "WP:PAYWALL." Here is how WP:PAYWALL actually reads: "Access to sources: Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." Carrite (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I say that as someone some of whose work in Cloud Infrastructure has gone live this week. Implementing a Cloud Infrastructure is just another very large distributed system problem: you have users to authenticate; they ask for resources over a remote API, you give them to them (VMs, messaging services, database services etc), you bill them. Nothing that profound, just hard to get working. Oh, and you have to design it to scale to thousands of machines and be resilient to failure but again, not that new. We don't call this "Cloud Engineering", we call it "test driven development of datacentre-scale applications". Now, the users of these systems have to design applications that have to be agile, to work in a world of change. Again, "test-driven development of distributed applications hosted in a cloud environment". Not Cloud Engineering. That said, I do strongly believe that future applications will be different. They may be datacentre scale [My other computer is a datcentre], [The Datacenter as a Computer ]. There are fundamental changes in architecture here, but I don't think we'd (currently) call it cloud engineering. Datacentre-scale is a better way. (That said, MS Azure does expose some of this architecture to paying customers). Then there are the applications that run in an amazon-style infrastructure, but are more built around traditional applications deployed in an IaaS world. And I suppose there are the half-way houses: VMs using infrastructure services: key-value stores, messaging, etc. It's certainly a new environment to code in. But to call it "Cloud Engineering?". It seems like Wikipedia is being used to create a term here, rather than document the existing state of the world. As evidence of this, I will cite one discipline that Cloud Engineering claims to encompass: Web Engineering. Look at that article? The web has been around for 20+ years, application servers are at least 15+ years old, and yet still that term Web Engineering isn't in widespread use. Maybe once the Web Engineering article is out of start-grade we can worry about Cloud Engineering -or whatever it is called by then- but for now, it's just repeating opinions and gartner-group buzzwords. SteveLoughran (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I looked at the original author's contributions, and they not only fall under the category of self-promotion, he's gone through a large amount of the software engineering and cloud computing articles to insert x-refs to an article on a topic that nobody else has encountered. If you search for "cloud engineering" then there's almost nothing on the topic; this article comes first and second comes a [[12]] which introduces the datacentre-scale topics I mentioned earlier, and indeed, cites the same classic google reports. I fear that Tony is not only trying to get more citations for is ACM article on wikipedia than it gets in the rest of the computing industry (two citations; not read it myself yet to have an opinion on it), he's trying to create a new concept by way of wikipedia -indeed, a whole new category- and then take credit for it. This not only not how the ACM works, it's not how the academic side of the computing industry works. I don't cite my papers or books -neither should anyone else. If your work is seminal enough, someone else will do it for you. Now I'm going to have to d/l and read the article and strip out all citations that aren't appropriate.

returning to the topic of this AfD, I think I will start an article on datacentre-scale computing. That will cover many of the issues, but I won't cite my work, and I will use the terminology that other people use. No cloud hype in the title. SteveLoughran (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author also created an article about themselves, which has been deleted (albeit some time ago): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Shan. -- samj in^out 09:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, thanks for commenting, as I trust your judgement on this.

To go back to my previous delete comment, is this a delete because the discipline doesn't exist yet, or because it can't ever exist? IMHO, I know what "cloud engineering" is. I can draw you its boundaries, but I don't know whether any workers in the field have yet created material that falls within it. It looks here as if there's a COI / SPS / puffery problem more than anything: one person is jumping the gun to self-promote (see also Web 3.0) before there's an established corpusfor us to pick over and document. As before, I suspect deletion is currently the way to go.

Do you though feel that there is not yet a discipline for cloud engineering, or that there really never will be one? I still feel that there will be one, once it's established. The cloud is important, so I hope someone will be taking an engineering approach to it, not just letting the PHBs and the charlatans split the money between themselves. Wikiprecedent is that articles once deleted are hard to re-create when ripe - WP isn't a WP:RS, but AfD is bizarrely seen as RS by some vocal deletionists for proving non-notability in the future. I'd thus have no problem here with a content-free stub under Cloud engineering, even if it said no more than "Cloud engineering is the application of robust software engineeering approaches to the Cloud. No-one has yet worked out the details for doing this, and the nearest we've come is web- & datacentre engineering."

I agree that web != cloud. I would disagree though that cloud is no more than a datacentre, and that it can be managed similarly. IMHO, a cloud has to be implemented over multiple sites of available resource, and it has to be free of single-point failures affecting any one datacentre. Many of the service-purchase issues are the same between them, but single-host clouds are not clouds - they can break.

As to the WP aspects of this, I'm a lot happier voting delete on a large bad article I can see than on a pre-stripped one. No offence to those involved in this article, but that's a technique popular for deleting articles by gradual cuts that's used way too often by some other unscrupulous editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good analogy is Internet engineering (which you'll see is a redlink, as it should be) — the web engineering article is just a repository for original research and a spam trap, as this article would certainly become. Note that I have rattled off the disciplines mentioned here in the cloud computing article, and would suggest that when/if that section outgrows its host we move it to a separate page. -- samj in^out 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the paywall references that I could get at through IEEE and ACM access. [12] is a tutorial, not even peer-reviewed to conference standards; it gets cited by some of the other papers by Shan and a colleague. [13] and [15] are pretty much the same 2 page abstract reformatted for different events. There's nothing seminal in any of them. If you want something good, look at the paper Above the Clouds. SteveLoughran (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Uncertain ~~I have almost never said "bad faith nomination", but this one justifies it.~~ Removing all of the valid 3rd party references from an article and then listing it for AfD is ~~outrageous and~~ prejudicial. Such a tactic can delete anything. The nom repeatedly cites WP:PAYWALL, which basically says the exact opposite of what he thinks he does: all published RSs are acceptable, print or online, paid or free access. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a guide to the free internet only. In computer engineering, as in most academic fields, almost all RSs are paid access--unfortunate as that may be, both for us and the world in general. While we wait for open access, we should do what we can to summarize the information from such sources. Many of the sources are from IEEE, so there is no justification for the nom calling them not RSs. The article does need a rewrite; I agree there was an excesive degree of self-promotion, but that can be solved by editing. One delete !voter above says to wait until there is a textbooks about it--that is not the WP standard of notability , but something much more restrictive . DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: This was a bad faith article by an editor with a record of abusing Wikipedia to promote himself and his work, and a good faith effort to clean up after him (albeit with a misunderstanding of how WP:PAYWALL works — I read "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source" and assumed it meant I should be able to verify the claims without having to pay for the privilege). I had originally intended to just clean up the article, but when I did there was only this worth keeping (and even then, see User:SteveLoughran's comments above as to why even that's not appropriate). -- samj in^out 08:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out some of what I said earlier; I sincerely apologize for it. It was apparently just an attempt to deal by deletion what should have been dealt with by editing, combined with annoyance out at an excessive promotional list of references which should have been similarly edited, not deleted. I over-reacted to that removal of references. I too have known the feeling that after a good deal of work on a promotional article, there's nothing left, & it does incline a person to deletion. But I admit to some confusion about how we are to deal with concepts like this. We've recently had an instance of people inserting a group of randomly combined words, and calling them concepts. If this is equivalent to some other concept the articles should be merged, at this point probably in a separate discussion.. I'm not expert in the subject, or I'd give it a try. I've changed by !vote to "Uncertain". DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Harrison (English footballer)

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

Previously deleted by PROD, but restored as per request at WP:REFUND. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY notability as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also lacks any significant media coverage that passes WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a footballer, not notable as an actor. Giant Snowman 16:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:NFOOTY) and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:GNG) Jebus989 ^✰ 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his sports career and acting, even when combined, do not meet WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been improved since nomination and there is a clear consensus that the notability standard has bee met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Woodard

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing in article or Google to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of book sources ("William Parsons Woodard"=7 or "William P. Woodard"=641 or "William Woodard" + Japan=113 or "William Woodard" +Shinto=39) and I've listed six significant works written by the subject. Applied one source about his graduation from Union Theological Seminary. BusterD (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above and significant cites on GS in a very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It might have been a good idea to try Google Scholar and WorldCat, as well as Google. I have added several 3rd party RS reviews of his principle book, and several published tributes to his works , including the current principal encyclopedic work on the subject which said in 2007 "Woodard's 1972 study remains the standard work on Japan's religious reformation". This explicitly shows him after 35 years still the main authority on his subject. I could have found more, but this was definitive enough that I stopped at that one. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Full disclosure: I asked DGG to take a look at the sourcing, hoping he could do exactly this sort of improvement, and I'm rather pleased that it worked out so well. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Notability demonstrated beyond a hint of a doubt. ^Bongo_matic 06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R-Truth & The Miz

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nowhere near notable enough. Not even an official tag-team. Deely1 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, and no references to establish it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:CS (Not a single source is cited) which ostensibly brings us to WP:RS and WP:OR (i.e.: Awesome Truth which has never been officially or canonically mentioned as opposed to Air Boom. History was directly copied and pasted from R-Truth's article - which is ok in terms of copyright and Wikipedia policy... but it's entirely out of con text with the rest of the article; and it carries over the See Also which is entirely redundant at this point. Basically, the entire definition of WP:CRYSTAL. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 23:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just interested in your opinions, assuming this article was reliably sourced, and in light of this team's tag title shot at Night of Champions would any of you motion to keep the article if they (a) won the titles? (b) did not win the titles (tagging together for the first time since their alliance) Starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would if (a) they won the titles, or (b) after losing they continued to team up together and were in some sort of feud. Of course the article would have to be reliably sourced for that.--Deely1 00:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state? Not a chance. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 01:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources or claims to notability. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. CRRays Head90 | ^{Another way...} 19:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambang Widjaja

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

Nominate for deletion Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, from article and Ghits. Has been previously prodded for deletion, which was removed by creator (whose username has the same initials as the subject of the article). Has been nominated as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person. Keb25 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable person. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy of unbalanced growth

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

No sources, poor content. Shrug-shrug (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid topic [13]. There would be enough literature to create a valid article [14]. --Pass3456 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Notable topic - I have added some refs. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: Is there some way for me to withdraw the nomination? It has been improved far beyond it's original status, and should be kept. Shrug-shrug (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gumo

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

Unambiguously promotional article about a insufficiently notable person, apparently a club or fashion entrepreneur. Unambiguous promotion:

co-founder of the pioneering online music streaming company Soundpedia
as co-founder of the hugely successful events company SoundFormula/SquareBeats
fronted the startup catalyst Makeforce
As a rebellious teen he naturally gravitated to New York City where he soon started producing underground dance music events.
briefly married to his longtime partner ... of the ultra-hip Parisian fashion/art collective
a major advocate for companies and fellow entrepreneurs from around the world
assisted IDA Singapore and the National University of Singapore's technopreneurship programme.
went on to opening a string of businesses with various partners some of which have gone on to achieve remarkable notoriety

Offered references are to an interview on a blog, and in an incidental mention as the host of a "star studded event" on another bloglike news site. I am not finding anything better. Article is full of biographical detail that cannot be referenced to the offered sources, which raises both conflict of interest and living person biography issues. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - also check out photo uploaded under user:Jgatien - whilst user could be a sockpuppet of Gumo, in fact it is gumo himself, noted by ip recording in singapore from node at marina bay sands (his workplace). Nothing notable about this figure. Poses as "Jan Gatien" when person knows nothing about such activity. does it qualify as a speedy G4 and salt? Avatera (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article creator offered no reliable and independent sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Presumably the nominator checked for and failed to find same. I found some Facebook/Linkedin/blog-type coverage, but nothing independent and reliable about the subject at Google, nothing at Google news archive, and but one book with a page or so about the involvement of a "Greg Gumo," if it is the same person, in an alleged shoplifting incident by a supermodel at Google Books: [15]. Not sufficient to establish notability. Edison (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Vanity article to promote a non-notable person. Ridiculous form of advertising/promotion. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Has been shown to meet WP:PROF from here and here. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Heymons

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

Nominate for deletion See ms to fail WP:PROF. Could find nothing to support notability, and article has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of cites on GS with h-index of 12, which passes WP:Prof#C1 for work done a long time ago in a moderately cited field. Did the nominator look for German sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
keep per Xxanthippe, who evidently can count faster than i. it's almost certain that GS is going to understate the influence of someone working this long ago. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus but deleting for WP:BLP concerns. v/r - T P 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Toro Castro

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

Simply not notable for his own article - a name on a list Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of sources that you can find but it is easy to translate. The link is http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=%22Antonio+Toro+Castro%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1238l1238l0l1667l1l1l0l0l0l0l170l170l0.1l1l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dcb1ab7018e0fb92&biw=1440&bih=717 -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also's mention from the Spanish version Wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Toro. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please cite at least one reliable source that says he was convicted of the bombings. Otherwise, your comments will have to be removed as BLP violations. The Spanish Wikipedia article has only ONE source, and it's a primary source, which at least on the English Wikipedia, cannot be used for such an allegation in the article. According to the NYT, he was acquitted ([16]). As far as I can tell from some of the Spanish sources, Castro was convicted of drug trafficking ([17]), not of the bombings themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell (and I'm having trouble with the sources), the only thing he's "notable" for is being charged and acquitted of a crime in connection with a notable event. His inclusion in another Wikipedia is not a justification for keeping him here. Perhaps he should be deleted there, too, but that's not my province.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — there is plenty of coverage even from the find sources link above. you can get even more if you change it to "antonio toro" (due to peculiarities of spanish names) like this. the coverage spans at least four years and appears in major newspapers in at least english and spanish. clearly meets gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is 10 hits and not only about him. Does not meet WP:PERP and WP:CRIME, a clear delete. - DonCalo (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not 10 hits, but 2,810. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, can be dealt with in the article about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. - DonCalo (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage, reliable sourcing. Its a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whats needed here is additional sources and expanded information. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is not even important enough to be mentioned in the article on the 2004 Madrid train bombings. This one sentence can be included there. A clear case for deletion. - DonCalo (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete huge WP:BLP concerns. he was acquitted by a court. i don't think it's necessary that he have an article when found innocent by a court. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be merged into an article such as redirect or something. How every it will be part of the article -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E, and especially given the nature of what the subject is even partially notable for, we should err on the side of privacy. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We must get some text from the Spanish Version Wikipedia. That will make it simple. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media coverage not enough for lasting notability or impact, see WP:109PAPERS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2004 Madrid train bombings or 2004 Madrid train bombings suspects, as all the press coverage is regarding the bombings. He was acquitted at first, and an appeal was made [18], by which he was sentenced to four years for possession and traffic of explosives, but it was dismissed, as with the original sentencing, that he had provided the explosives for the bombings in specific. In such context and with so little content, I don't think an article is appropriate, following WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP — frankie (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really easy becuase it doesn't confict about up to date information. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Search engine optimization. Courcelles 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image search optimization

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

Fork of search engine optimization, an unnecessary how-to article that should just be deleted. Any verifiable info on the topic can go in the main article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Notable data to Search engine optimization. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- To the article Search engine optimization. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full fledged city

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

Non-notable theory that has far as I can tell has existed for a couple of months. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had PROD'ed this article, but this AFD overtook that process. This definition of "full fledged city" appears to be the thesis of a single author, not a generally accepted definition of the term. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of being a NEO term, lacking wide spread usage. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scientifically, this is a definition for a new concept, and a potential hypothesis, but not even a theory. not notable at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alcatel-Lucent. I couldn't find a Alcatel-Lucent router's article for a merge but if someone can then this can be merged there. An article for the routers could also be created. v/r - T P 01:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatel Lucent 7750 Service Router

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG. No signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is less than 30 days old. Many hits when searching news. --Kvng (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Age of article is not relevant in deletion discussions and I only turn up 73 news hits (Is google filtering them geographically? I am in NZ.). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know how you calibrate these things but I consider 73 hits to be many. Policy may say that age is not a factor but common sense says this is not a clear-cut case so why the rush to delete it? --Kvng (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google, and Yahoo search, return only passing mentions. Not W:42. LES 953 (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual with other Alcatel/Lucent routers. The normal solution for this typoe of article , and should have been done instead of bringing it here. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference proves existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or~~ keep I'm being lazy and don't have time to sort through all these, but a news archive search turns up quite a bit. [19]. A number of those links are dead and more are PR-releases, but quite a few discuss the router and it's position in the market. None seemed great after 3 minutes of looking, but many contained non-trivial information about the router and it's market role. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck merge !vote based on Trevj source. I suspect that merging is the best way to cover the material, but it does appear to meet WP:N, so I think any merging discussion belongs on the talk page, not here. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 12:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Nothing significant in detail in the news about the router that warrants its own page under WP:GNG --Ryan.germany (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on [20] and likely existence of similar coverage amongst other hits. --Trevj (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there any chance of the Merge or ... comments being revised one way or the other? --Trevj (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No indication of wp:notability. No references other than themselves. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lacks sources to establish notability for independent article. Edison (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into a Parent Alcatel/Lucent routers article. Plenty of reviews, (more than most songs have). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem like an argument to keep, could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable Router. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official Workers Party

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

Political party that has never contested an election and no evidence provided regarding its notability beyond the fact that it existed. Number 5 7 11:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name is also a common phrase found in books at Google Book search, so many false hits. What books have coverage of this particular organization, and how extensive is the coverage? Having a directory listing in some "giant encyclopedia of every splinter party" would not be sufficient. Edison (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Edison. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. ★ Auree _talk 22:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International South Korean Text Shortening System of Seoul

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

The content doesn't seem encyclopedic. Ratibgreat (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not claimed. A cell phone code system mainly used by students at one university does not seem very notable, or international for that matter. BigJim707 (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title and the text are incomprehensible Konglish. Post the content to Talk:SMS language if someone things it might be useful to the topic. — AjaxSmack 09:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable gibberish. Linguogeek (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Repeats(Dying Fetus album)

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

Non-notable album (?), unreferenced Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to band's article. No references, no indication of wp:notability, not even wp:notability-relevant claims in text. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to merge, no sources or coverage, so can't even verify it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Penny Ante

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

Non-notable album? Not yet released anyway, unreferenced. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may be unreleased, but there are a number of reliable, third-party sources which give the album coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The article is in need of expansion, not deletion. ItsZippy (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zippy. Passes WP:V & WP:MUSIC. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per numerous sources, and the likelihood of others existing per more research. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's good enough for IllaZilla, it's good enough for me. Zippy, do you care to expand the article with a sentence or two and add those sources? I know, AfD is not for cleanup, but that makes the notability case at a single glance. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have expanded the article and added all the references I provided above. Could someone cast their eye over it and make any changes they feel necessary, please (it always seems good to get a second opinion). Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well done. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found. Dream Focus 00:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of Space

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

A non notable comic story without reliable third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Don Dare article. No indication of wp:notability, and, at 5 years old, the article has had time to do that. Reduce it to 4-5 sentences and merge. 95% of this article is an endless overly detailed plot "summary". North8000 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it must be merged it should go to List of Dan Dare stories.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to List of Dan Dare stories. no Cites or stated WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dare: The First Story

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

A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dan Dare article After reducing to 4-5 sentences. No indication of wp notability, and the article is just an endless overly-detailed plot "summary" North8000 (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it must be merged it should go to List of Dan Dare stories.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to List of Dan Dare stories. no Cites or stated WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marooned on Mercury

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marooned on Mercury

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

A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to List of Dan Dare stories. no Cites or stated WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (Dan Dare)

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

A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cut it down to 4-5 sentences and merge it to the Don Dare article. No indication of wp:notability. The article consists only of an endless overly-detailed plot summary. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it must be merged it should go to List of Dan Dare stories.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to List of Dan Dare stories. no Cites or stated WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pursed lip breathing

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

Looks more like a Wiktionary thing to me! And no refs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a common technique that will be easy to source given a chance. Just a quick Google search shows the exact term used for a variety of reasons, plus images, videos, etc. such as [21], [22], [23] I think there may be more here than meets the eye. The current article is little more than a stub (not relevant for an AFD), but as for the article meeting criteria for inclusion, I think it clearly does. I certainly don't doubt you nom'ing this in good faith, but I think you might have jumped the gun a bit. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Dennis noted a Google search shows the topic is real and the article accurate. Some of the article's see also's do seem a bit odd. BigJim707 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a real, used term and a real subject North8000 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reference, cited above, includes a listing of many articles published in major medical journals which are about this therapeutic breathing technique, so it satisfies WP:N. This book actually discusses "pursed lip breathing" as an example of finding reliable sources in medical journals, and says the author found such sources. Here are others of the Google Books hits, which have with significant coverage: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Google Scholar has 1300 hits: [34]. Edison (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2004 Review article which is freely accessible. It is in English if you click on it. PMID:15161595 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Babazadeh

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

Non-notable? Non-English language reference sources, one of which is a fansite. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this is their national team, at a professional level, doesn't that automatically qualify him as 'notable', just as we list all athletes who participate and have actually played a game at the professional level? He is also the goalkeeping coach for a national team, which *seems* to be a second reason to be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator states that the article only has non-English language references. Why is that relevant? Jogurney (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As you obviously know, it isn't relevant on Wikipedia. The nom just may not know that. It isn't listed in WP:ATA but should. Many of his other noms use a question as a rationale as well. Assuming good faith, but reading WP:AFD may be helpful to the nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFOOTY justifies notability for football managers, not for other members of the technical staff. Furthermore, he is not notable even as a football player, since both teams he played for were competing then at the second and third divisions of Iran. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Apparently, he might pass WP:GNG due to heaps of articles about him in Persian. (as shown by TonyStarks below) However, since i'm not exactly fluent in that language, i cannot say for sure if they are WP:ROUTINE or not. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal was playing in the top division when Babazadeh was with them every season except 1993-1994. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we shouldn't quote WIkipedia articles, but until 2001 the Azadegan League was not professional, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:NFOOTY. Played for Esteghal in the Iranian top flight, national cup (winning it in 1995) and the AFC Champions League (winning it in 1990, reaching the finals in 1992 and the semi-finals in 1997). Exact stats are not available to confirm whether he played or not but I think we can safely assume that he made at least 1 appearance in the 7-8 seasons spent at the club. Also, his name is mentioned on some forum talking about Esteghlal's 1990 Asian Cup triump: [35]TonyStarks (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyStarks' research. Playing in the ACL finals is certainly noteworthy and ought to satisfy our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? I don't think there is enough media coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG, and he does not pass WP:NFOOTY, since he never played or managed a team in a fully-professional league and as a player he hasn't represented his country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition... unless i'm missing something. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Asian Champions League is the most notable competition for most Asian footbal clubs. I also found that he was part of the Iran squad that finished 3rd at the 1988 AFC Asian Cup - although he didn't appear in any matches. I can't see if he actually appeared for the Iran senior side in a FIFA international. Jogurney (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kosm1fent .. and just to add to the stuff already mentioned above, he might not have a lot of media coverage in English sources but when you look up his name in Arabic/Farsi (حمید بابازاده), you get tons of hits. I don't understand Farsi but most of the links are football related so I'd say he passes WP:GNG (plus passing WP:FOOTY for what I mentioned above.TonyStarks (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then he might indeed pass WP:GNG. But i'm not convinced at all that he passes WP:NFOOTY... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wybunbury#Education. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wybunbury Delves C of E Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wybunbury#Education per usual practice for primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wybunbury#Education per usual practice for primary schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2005 Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles. v/r - T P 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles Qualifying

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

Is this actually notable, in and of itself? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge per WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:ROUTINE and also per WP:NSPORTS#Individual seasons which says "Wikipedia is not a stats directory." --Marc Kupper|talk 18:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need to think more about my delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines#Notability presumably reflects the consensus of wikiproject tennis and that allows for article pages for some qualifying rounds. This event and it's qualifying rounds seems to be a "keep" per that list. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying is a closed AFD similar to this one. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I thought about this some more and changed my delete to a keep based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines#Notability. While I'd like to see the bright line moved so that we did not have individual Wikipedia articles for every ATP/WTA tournament, much less qualifying tournaments, the place to do that discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - We tested a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying and people were happy with the results. I'm changing my thoughts on this AFD to be a merge done the same was as the other article. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Actually the guidelines say the tourney (including qualifiers) is notable. But there shouldn't be a separate page when it could easily be a new section on the bottom of the main page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline(s) says the tourney is notable? --Marc Kupper|talk 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was part of the International Series Gold back then. Now it is an ATP 500 series event... about the equivalent. As for notability of ATP 500 events see Tennis Tourney Notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homely

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

Non-notable? And ref is to non-English language source Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of it charting or being notable in any other way. Searching seems to verify the lack of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:homely, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbu Library

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

Non-notable? Only ref is to the library's homepage Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and ability to establish wp:notability is unlikely. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Only finding "ratings" pages on their wifi, which don't even have ratings themselves. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable library. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Golden State (band). v/r - T P 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Division (album)

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

non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the band's article No refs, no indication of notability. Even the band article has no references but appears more likely. North8000 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and North8000. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy and closed as moot. The page was a draft of a user essay. It may now be read at User:The Yowser/Obfuscation on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I tend to agree. Author might want to have a look at the plain English essay as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscation on Wikipedia

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

I could not see a CSD for this type of thing? Personal essay, not suitable type. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTOPINION -Cntras (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - it's a User essay, so should be Userficated to User:The Yowser/Obfuscation on Wikipedia. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has agreed to this and it seems it is an honest mistake - anyone know how to do it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that with a redirect, but best to have an admin do it and really delete it. North8000 (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Obvious choice for the closing admin, for reasons already stated. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I've never seen two keep !voters argue about whose keep rationale is more right before. v/r - T P 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Richards (ice hockey)

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY as he has played more than 100 games in fully professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To start with, the rationale is poor. But also, the subject is notable per Dolovis. Patken4 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per statements above. Also, the nominator didn't qualify any rationale for deletion in the nomination, and should have followed the guidelines in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and placed the tag Template:Proposed deletion on the article, rather than immediately referring the article to AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion is an alternative deletion process, not a prerequisite. Powers ^T 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dolovis is mistaken, as is altogether too often the case; Richards does not meet Criterion #3, which does not include the Central Hockey League. The threshold for the CHL, as is specifically cited in Criterion #4, is "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League ..." (Dare I hope that in the future, people examine for themselves the policies and guidelines quoted in AfD debates rather than just assume someone citing them is accurate?)
As it happens, though, Richards is the fifth leading scorer in CHL history, and was named a First Team All-Star in 2007, so he passes Criterion #4. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Ravenswing, it is not helpful to any discussion make condescending personal remarks against other editors, and declaring that editors who disagree agree with your POV are wrong ("mistaken") is uncivil. There is always room for differing opinions on issues, and my opinion is that the CHL is a “fully professional league”, but that argument is moot because this player also meets criteria #4. Dolovis (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not for the reason Dolovis mentions as he is incorrect. CHL is a lower minor league so just playing 100 games in it is not good enough. Keep because he meets Criterion #4 for being the 5th leading scorer in CHL history and being a First Team All-Star. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NHOCKEY only says "fully professional minor league", which the CHL is. Powers ^T 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CHL is not considered fully professional because of the amount the players are paid. Criteria #4 was specifically created for the Central Hockey League (and the juniors and other low paying minor leagues such as the SPHL which do not pay enough to live on and thus aren't fully professional because players have to have other jobs to support themselves) so that it would not be mistaken to fall into the other criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously, that didn't work. Our article on the Central Hockey League says nothing about it being semi-professional. Powers ^T 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And note that List of ice hockey leagues lists the CHL under "Minor professional" not under "Semi-Pro". Powers ^T 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Most likely cause they don't promote themselves that way. And as everything on wiki there is disagreement on where semi-professional comes into play. Some take it to mean low pay, others take it to mean when you have to pay for your own equipment, accommodations etc. The baseball project for example says any league below MLB is not fully professional. Another real world example is that the NCAA considered the Canadian Hockey League to be semi-professional whereas the IIHF and HockeyCanada etc consider it amateur. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So that's my point. If Criterion 3 is not meant to include lower-minor-league teams -- professional or otherwise -- then say so. Powers ^T 12:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is sort of what I am saying, I thought it did. Which is why the next criteria clearly indicates "lower minor league". Perhaps its a case that it was considered that people would take all the requirements together instead of trying to split them out individually. I know I assumed people would read the following point and take them together. Would have to ask Ravenswing what he meant when he wrote it but assuming from his comment above I am guessing he did as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One would think it wouldn't have to do so, and that any reasonable editor would see two criteria referencing top-level leagues, the next one referencing upper-tier minor leagues, and the fourth referencing college, junior and lower-level minor leagues, and conclude from that "Gosh! Maybe those criteria not only define those levels, but mention the leagues to which they pertain ... hey, look, in fact, they do!" I presumed, when drafting those criteria, that a reasonable degree of common sense would prevail, and that people would (for instance) assume that a notability criterion specifically citing the Central Hockey League did, in fact, set forth the standards of notability for players of that league. To have set down in every other criterion, "By the way, this doesn't apply to the Central Hockey League - go see Criterion #4, really!" would have been unnecessary and insulting to the intelligence of the average editor.
        The above rant aside, Powers, come on. Are you really claiming to be confused here? Are you genuinely claiming that you don't think that Criterion #4 sets down the notability standards for lower-level leagues? To be honest, this is an exercise in pedantry. It's unnecessary, it's tendentious, and I don't see its relevance to this AfD. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't appreciate the condescension here. Surely being condescending is worse than being pedantic? Anyway, no, it wasn't clear at all. Since the criteria are different, I thought Criterion #4 was additional to Criterion #3 for leagues that satisfied both predicates, rather than substituional. If you meant "upper-level minor leagues" why not just say so; using parallel categories ("upper-level", "lower-level") makes the mutual exclusivity of the criteria much more clear than using categories that overlap ("fully professional", "lower-level"). Powers ^T 13:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to throw such words in either direction guys. A different point of view is always good to see where the holes in our thinking may be. Certainly can work something up to tighten up the wording for the future. Both of you are good faith editors so lets try the best to drop the frustration on either side. Hockey has had enough issues in the last 24 hours. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(blinks) You think that "all-time top ten leading scorer" would possibly be necessary to cover players that "Played at least 100 games" didn't? Heck, there's only one player on the CHL's top ten scorers (for example) who hasn't played at least five hundred games in that loop. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject matter is not notable; it isn't even close. Of its four cited sources, only one is reliable. The other three are not suitable for inclusion at this site. The so-called Libertarian National Socialist Green Party is nothing but a website, and its sole claim to notability is its peripheral mention in media accounts of the Red Lake massacre, which frankly isn't sufficient (and not surprisingly, provides its sole reliable source mention). A merger with Bill White (neo-Nazi) might be another acceptable option, but frankly a brief mention of the existence of this website (and rest assured, that's all it is; it is NOT a political party in any way, shape, or form, and it never has been) at both the Bill White article, and the Red Lake massacre article, should be more than sufficient coverage for this distinctly non-notable subject material.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom's comments. Note that the organization listing reference essentially says that the "party" is a probable hoax, and is used to cite a sentence that says something similar. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only trivial coverage in reliable sources and no significant coverage. In the first AFD, a number of editors cited some news stories relating to Jeffrey Weise and the Red Lake massacre. However, the coverage in those sources never amounted to anything substantial, nor do I think the breadth of coverage is sufficient to establish notability. There is simply not enough information in the reliable sources to write an article about this organization. -- Irn (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every hoax alarm in my brain is buzzing, the name of this purported organization being an idiot's contradiction of terms. If it weren't for the Guardian story in the footnotes about the school shooter that is said to have posted on a message board of this purported organization, I'd say it was an easy call. I favor the inclusion of all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections if existence can be confirmed; but this sounds more like The Onion than anything. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to share in the notion that we should be particularly inclusive when its comes to articles about political parties, but (and I hate to be repetitive) this isn't a political party. This is merely an obscure and eccentric website; there is no membership, there are no activities. Its really no different than if I posted a bunch of photographs of myself at a website, and called that site the Human Anatomical Representation Party. Mere utilization of the term "party," does not make something into a bona fide political party. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not a real party and had no existence beyond a website and a volunteer spokesman. Merging Bill White material to that article would be appropriate. I'm not sure about the rest. Will Beback talk 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or even Speedy Delete per CSD A7 (organisations and websites). The first AfD was an Non-admin closure by an editor who has made the sum total of 2 edits to the encyclopedia. Any experienced user or admin may have either assessed the consensus differently or relisted the AfD. Apart from a fleeting mention in a newspaper article about something else, I have not found sufficient reliable sources that even hint at notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Helling

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

The Vice-President of Advertising Operations at The New York Times. Oi, in charge of advertising at a newspaper has to be one of the worst jobs right now. Unable to find reliable sources except for the one from the New York Times, which isn't exactly independent. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded this article without realising it had already been prodded and contested. The article was supported only by corporate bios; news and other searches showed no Tom Hellings matching this description, so I'm inclilned to believe he's not notable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Ohconfucius. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mardel

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

A musician who has released two singles this summer on a small independent label. Unable to find reliable sources about him. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this artist in reliable sources, only his social media pages and listings at online retailers (CD Baby, iTunes). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:Notability (music), insufficient recording and third-party coverage.--SabreBD (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Angelika Kluk

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

fails WP:CRIME. people get murdered by blunt objects all the time. a spike in coverage during the trial but no long standing historical notability about the crime or trial. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Yes people gets murdered by blunt objects all the time but not all get the coverage (as you yourself stated spiked at the hight of the events) for both the murder nad subsequent trial as this one. Has also been kept per a previous AfD not included here with a link for some reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what aspects of WP:CRIME is met? Where there is evidence of persistent coverage years after the trial? Please show actual links. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally there are press reference to the case - or at least the scene of the crime - in the past week: Daily Record. Also of relevance is this section 24 in this Press Association submission on libel laws. AllyD (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; highly notable crime covered in multiple sources. --John (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfD resulting in "keep" was while the article was under the name of the victim. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a suggestion to Merge this article into that on the perpetrator: see Talk:Peter_Tobin#Merge_of_Angelika_Kluk_murder_case; that remains outstanding, however the template had been removed from the current article in question. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, lets keep the article and discuss it when kept. I think however that the person in the article is notable on its own.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Scottish media was absolutely jam packed with this case for weeks on end. It was the No.1 headline story in countless tv news bulletins, radio news bulletins and newspaper editions, and the subject of heavy commentary. I find it very hard to see how on earth it could fail our notability criteria. Mais oui! (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's difficult to measure notability against WP:EVENT from the references provided in the article, but I'm prepared to go with the assurances from established Wikipedians that it was a prominent story and a frequent news headline. Assuming this is the case, there's little point in disputing the notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy on Stellar Evolution

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

This article is almost pure original research. No citations of reliable sources are provided for novel theories. Moogwrench (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire No "almost" about it - this is WP:OR with bells on. Yunshui (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear original research with a dash of soapbox thrown in. GILO A&E⇑ 08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but incoherent, sourceless ramblings. North8000 (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent, sourceless, nutty WP:OR. -- 202.124.74.97 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This is what the phrase "original research" was coined for. It does not use sources (and the content isn't even remotely compatible with what reliable sources say, anyway). bobrayner (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A rambling, unclear, personal essay. RJH (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I am sad that there isn't a speedy deletion criterion for this sort of garbage but maybe we can just close early. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Roth

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

Not a notable person, no reliable 3rd party references, article appears promotional to sell books and DVD's. 2MPCMOS (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 2MPCMOS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article.--Cox wasan (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No high-quality sources that are required to establish notability, mostly using self as his own reference. --Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Petrović

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sure he meets, because he actively plays in Serbian super league. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be very impressive since the guy is now in his 50s. ;) Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played at a notable level and now manages a leading club in Serbia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is managing a club in a fully-professional league – meets WP:NFOOTY. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played, and now coaches, at pro level. How he could be nominated in first place? FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Flichel

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played for a professional level team. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY as he has played more than 100 games in fully professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To start with, the rationale is poor. But also, the subject is notable per Dolovis. Patken4 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Barra

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - again, played at a professional level. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable? SL93 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has played in a fully professional league. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at a fully professional level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. He meets WP:NFOOTY, as he has appeared in a fully-professional league. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fricker's

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

Not encyclopedic per WP:NOTGUIDE Racconish^Tk 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Referenced only to a "Yellow Pages" style of website and the restaurant's own, and with no significant third-party coverage found to improve this, there is a clear failure to meet notability requirements per WP:CORP. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No establishment of wp:notability. With 17 locations, probably could meet it, but there's no sourced encyclopedic content here worth saving. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Metcalf (ice hockey)

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

Not notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, played at the professional level. I'm taken aback at the sheer volume of AFD's you have created with the rationale being "Not notable?", as if it is a question, rather than a rationale. WP:BEFORE is an interesting read. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY as he has played more than 100 games in fully professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable? SL93 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To start with, the rationale is poor. But also, the subject is notable per Dolovis. Patken4 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 Squadron SAAF

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

Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Looks like somebody's sandbox from one 5-minute session, not an article. North8000 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just able to expand this to a stub using references available through Googling the squadron. There appears to be more on the squadron in hardcopy books which Google hasn't digitialised. As such, I think that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now expanded to valid stub status! Farawayman (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me now - that's looking better! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable under WP:GNG as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliably sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 Squadron SAAF

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

Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Looks like somebody's sandbox from one 5-minute session, not an article. North8000 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for 12 Squadron SAAF in Google books produces lots of references to this squadron, which appears to have seen extensive combat during World War II. WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just expanded the article using Google book sources and reliable websites. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has now been expanded to Start status. Farawayman (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable under WP:GNG as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 Squadron SAAF

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

Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Looks like somebody's sandbox from one 5-minute session, not an article. North8000 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of references on this squadron available through Google Books ([36]), and it's a safe bet that there are lots of offline sources on the unit. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient data now added to qualify this article as a start class article. Farawayman (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable under WP:GNG as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as an operational second world war squadron. MilborneOne (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilla (gangs)

Related AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Maravilla

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

Has been thrice deleted under different names, under the first and fourth AFDs for Maravilla (which is now a disam page), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Maravilla. User attempted to create this through AFC, but when his request was denied, he waited until he had enough edits to be autoconfirmed, and then moved it into mainspace Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because an article has a delete-history doesnt mean it can be kept in the future in sources are found. like in this case.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are those sources reliable? I don't think so Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT - as per nom - low notability time sink. Off2riorob (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke the remains. This article (under various names) has been previously deleted via AFD, PROD and for copyright violation[37] but since first created in 2005, it has yet to be proved that the subject is notable via reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all except K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka – Japan GP -. v/r - T P 00:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Slovakia 2008

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

also nominating:

K-1 Rules Tournament 2008 in Hungary
K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Hawaii
K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Taipei
K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka – Japan GP -

another useless series of qualifying event results with mainly non notable participants. fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nom Please make sure the additional articles listed are tagged for AfD. Currently they are not. Papaursa (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the event in Fukuoka, delete the others The event in Fukuoka was just up for AfD in August (under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Scandinavia MAX 2008) and featured a K-1 world title fight. The others appear to be routine sports coverage of less significant events. Papaursa (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese event, delete remainder I voted to keep that event previously and I see no reason to change my mind. The other articles are just routine reporting of results. Astudent0 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka – Japan GP - and delete the rest. None of these events have the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. However, I agree that since the Fukuoka show included a world title fight it should be kept and tagged for sources (done). I would add that this page should also be moved to K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka as a more sensible title. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadabad state

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

There is no such record of Sadabad State. The google book search comes to [38] zero. Further, an article page for same place Sadabad, Uttar Pradesh already exsists. Sadabad was probably an Estate and creator of the page if wishes can add his info to above page as history section. The page name Sadabad State gives a false notion that it was a princely stateJethwarp (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have moved some of the contents in History section of Sadabad, India. As this page title Sadabad State' is wrong. It should now be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Danpur. Nominator has copied some content from this article to the other page, so keeping history for attribution —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danpur State

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

There is no mention of Danpur as a princely state in any search. The search result is [39] zero. The google gives result for a town with similar name Danapur in Bihar and not Danpur in Uttar Pradesh. Danpur may have been a estate and in present day a village or a town. The creator of the page may either change the page contents and page name or the page should be deleted, as it gives a false notion that Danpur was a Princely State. Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have created a new page Danpur in which I have put some of the contents of this page. As Danpur was never a Princely state this page should be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pahasu. nominator has performed a copy-paste merge, closing as merge for attribution purposes —SpacemanSpiff 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pahasu State

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

There is no mention of Pahasu as a princely state of India. It was probably an Estate or Zamindari. The google search gives result [[40] Pahasu as princely state as zero. However, there are mentions of Nawabs of Pahasu, who were zamindars. Further, a page for same place Pahasu, already exists. Therefore, no need to create duplicate page. The creator may add his contents, as History section in Pahasu page. The page name Pahasu State gives a false notion that i.t was a princely state of India.Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have added the contents of this page Pahasu article creating a History section. As Pahasu State was never a Princely state this page should be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Havana Third Studio Album

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

WP:HAMMER. Article on an untitled, yet to be released music album. Arguably unreferenced (references listed in the article is a BBC page which doesn't say anything about a new album, a YouTube channel, a Facebook page indicating that the band might be making a new video, and the band's Wikipedia page - quoting unreferenced content added by the creator of this article!) Singularity42 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL and lacks WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … borderline {{db-song}}. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but then noticed that the creator posted a comment to this AFD's talk page. Relisting so that his views can be considered as well as some discussion of the second article nominated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated this page with the album's announcement in RockSound magazine at the start of 2011, and updated my references to include the fact that the Facebook page has been used to promote to and inform fans of any news. I also updated my YouTube page reference to state that it also contains the albums several making of videos and videos for the song 'The World or Nothing' and other songs by the band that are expected to appear on the album such as 'Smiles All Around' I will continue to update this page siting more and more references. As the band themselves have actually been refering to it as their second studio album [Though their debut E.P could be considered as the first] I will begin changing the article to say 'Second Studio Album' instead of third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadmurray1012 (talk • contribs) 2011-08-31T08:35:51
Delete both per WP:HAMMER. The "sources" are Facebook and other Wikipedia articles. YOU CAN'T DO THAT! WHY DO YOU KEEP DOING THAT?!??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs)
Delete both per above. - superβεεcat 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'm sorry Chadmurray1012 but I have to concur with everybody above. Neither of these 2 albums are ready for articles yet. When they get more coverage (and names) then the articles can be recreated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neutrality^talk 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Safdar Ali Awan

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

I'm not sure if this meets the notability guideline, and the only references are books. Sunny222, please see the response on my talk page concerning the article. Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be contrary to some of my research Maulana Mohammad Shoaib is the chair of this council[41] CapMan07008 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna add a bit more to my post and point out a possible COI, Sunny222 has worked exclusively on this article, the is no doubt in my mind. The Terminator p t c 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. basically indiscriminate unsourced list DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies with design management

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

No sources verifying that any of these companies apply design management. The only source in the article does not contain anything to verify the information in this article. When I click on the URL, there is no mention of design management on this page at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Criteria is not objective, defined, or capable of being objectively defined as it stands, so no list can ever pass inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague, subjective, and undefined to create a verifiable and discriminate list. Dzlife (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an objective definition in the article (though not at the top): has a DM dept, has published on DM, or has won a DM award. However, the article as it stands appears entirely OR. A reference to help us uninitiated learn what DM is would also be appreciated. I also wonder if the author paid any greater attention to the facts than to spelling and links, five of which I have just corrected. Ma^t_chups 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Article already discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Calcio Acri. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Serre Alburni

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

Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Calcio Acri. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Duplicate nomination – this article is already included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Calcio Acri, which has received multiple !votes. Recommend closing this in favor of centralizing the discussion in the other AfD. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice . Can be recreated or restored by a request to WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific World

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

Rather new journal, not notable yet. No third party sources, not indexed in any major selective databases (the only database in which it is currently included is the "Bibliography of Asian Studies"). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I can't bring myself to vote 'delete' on a journal, but Crusio makes a pretty good case. So I'm here to provide moral support for the journal and for Crusio, and I'll sit here on the fence, whistling Dixie. BTW, Crusio, many thanks for the good work you've done on the other contributions by the soon-to-be-blocked creator of this one. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Drop Muzik 2 : SNYDpendence Day

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

Mixtape from a barely notable group, containing basically nothing but a tracklist. I don't see how this is a very handy search term either. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and Bean: A Family Christmas in Your Ass

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

A compilation album that doesn't demonstrate significance. Also part of this nomination are Kevin and Bean: Last Christmas and Kevin and Bean: Santa's Swingin' Sack D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any coverage for any of these albums. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 04:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Federation fan club tapes

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

Prod removed. These tapes were sent to fan club members and sold at shows, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Sources I could find, including trueknowledge.com and a wrestling wiki, just direct to or copy from this article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If these items actually exist (which, as the nominator points out, is not proved) then they're minor items of merchandise with small-scale distribution. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barauli Rao. nominator has merged content, keeping page history for attribution —SpacemanSpiff 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barauli State

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

There is no mention of Barauli State google search is org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsb&source=lnms&tbm=bks&ei=O0FTTtL3HY3orQekpMDDDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CA4Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=67060fe410784c67&biw=1252&bih=520 is zero. Web search is also [42] nil. As such article should be deleted as per wiki guidelines. During British India, there were many Estates, Jagirs, who styled themselves as Raja and Nawab. This does not mean that they were princely states.Jethwarp (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Delete: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CJ4IAAAAQAAJ&q=Barauli,+Aligarh&dq=Barauli,+Aligarh&hl=en&ei=MkZTTs2mJ4ySgQfy8Zk1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA doesn't see fit to mention it as a state at all. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There already exists page name Barauli. Creator of page can add his info to this page in its history section. As there is no historical fact of existence of Barauli as a State or Princely State. The page name lives a false notion that Barauli was a Princely State in British India. This page therefore should be deleted as per wiki polcy.Jethwarp (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have created history section in page Barauli Rao in which I have put some of the contents of this page. As Barauli was never a Princely state this page should be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barauli Rao. Content was duplicate of Barauli State and that has now an attributed merge to Barauli Rao. —SpacemanSpiff 11:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rao of Barauli

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

The creator is creating mutiple pages with same contents, with some personal interest it seems. He has created page with same contents called Barauli State, which has already been nominated for AfD. It seems that he is writing about history of Bargujar clan. Then he should add relevant details with reliable citation to Brgujar page. No need to create multiple pages. Again zero result for title Rao of Barauli [43]. Jethwarp (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. As said before the other page created by same person that is Barauli State has same content. I have moved the contents to page Barauli Rao in history section. As such this page should be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROH Death Before Dishonor

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

Appears to be non-notable internet video content. Speedy was removed without addressing concern, so article was Proded. It was then deproded by the article creator without addressing the issue. No claims of notability, and am unable to locate reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to clarify why I opted to contest the speedy deletion. This in an article about an apparently annual wrestling event started in 2003 which was broadcast online the last 3 times. My concern, which I expressed to the nominator on their talk page, was that this did not qualify for A7, because it is essentially a sporting/entertainment event, something that does not within the A7 criterion, the fact that three of the events were broadcast online does not make the parent article web content. An article about one of the events before they were broadcast online would not be web content per A7, it is odd that the parent article would. If all of this is a mistake, well, I do make mistakes, I just don't see that this was one of them.

All of this says nothing about the notability of the article in question, but I thought it was worth saying. Quasi human | Talk 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established through third party sources. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Quasihuman has stated, this is a "annual wrestling event" by ROH. It has received coverage in reliable secondary sources http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/96-wwe/13795-feedback-to-roh-death-before-dishonor- http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Torch_Flashbacks_19/article_50935.shtml http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1314643404 but I'm not sure how the article can cite them. Starship.paint (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage found by Starship.paint is from highly specialized sources, but they do appear to be reliable and independent. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Marshall Roberts

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

the books are self published. the references seem to be mainly interviews with him promoting his own work, or essays reprinting the contents of it . Possible G11, considering the tele-tale signs of as many related articles as possible, and listings of multiple repetitive material, including all his articles, but I'd like a community opinion DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I'm going through the supposed published works, but none of them seem to be in notable publications. If I find anything notable I may change my mind, but I doubt this subject meets our notability requirements. Looks like promotion. Yworo (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there do seem to be half-a-dozen third-party refs of various qualities which range from mentioning him to a full in-depth interview. These need to be used to support the Professional background section. Unless there is a problem with these refs, he seems to be marginally notable. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no coverage in reliable sources at all, other than (barely, possibly, sometimes reliable) the huffington post. the rest is self-generated publicity, and we don't need to assist him in his efforts to generate more. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs better referencing. However, sounds notable to me as founder of Worldview Thinking and apparent influence. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but what makes you judge Worldview Thinking to be notable or even important? Who is he supposed to have influenced, and are there any sources for it? DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:BIO). I found no relevant results from Google News, and the huffington post blog-type piece cannot be considered significant coverage. There was a self-published press release which stated JMR would speak at the GreenGov symposium, which lent some notability but I was unable to find any mention of him on the whitehouse site Jebus989 ^✰ 18:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article.--Cox wasan (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa (song)

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

Notable band, not-notable song. Lachlanusername (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Song didn't chart, and notability isn't inherited. --Slashme (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, no sources, notability not inherited from artist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Keep per sources.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on; I'm finding some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple sources. None of these are entirely about the song, but that would be unusual for a song anyway. There's enough coverage to meet WP:N, though. The sources seem to focus on how the band was the target of a record-label bidding war, and that followed quickly on the heels of this Sub Pop single, making it an important single in rock music history (or at least Smashing Pumpkins history). Also, I was able to cobble together enough reviews to begin a reasonable "critical reception" section. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul Erik has added sources which meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is met. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion. Look at WP:NOTABLE. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator Lachlanusername please look for sources, you'd save everybody a lot of time. I cannot even contemplate how anybody could think a single by one of the biggest bands of the 90s is not notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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