Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 3

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War (EP)

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

Album with no evidence of notability. I swear I see more and more of these... Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about an EP with little more than a tracklisting. Can be adequately covered in the band article.--Michig (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable EP. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant copyvio DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth Shakespeare Players

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

Non-notable, unsourced advert Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn NW (Talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Payano

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

Minor league baseball player who passes WP:ATHLETE because of five appearances with the Kansas City Royals and the Chunichi Dragons in 2010. However, note that WP:ATHLETE says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." I cannot find any evidence that there exist sufficient independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth enough to merit an article, as opposed to a simple listing of facts which can be found in any baseball statistics database. NW (Talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously, there's the presumption of notability due to Payano having played in Nippon Professional Baseball. Given that presumption, independent reliable sources will for the player will likely be in Japanese, and thus perhaps will take a little more work than finding them in English. Unless you've done such a search, you can't present this for deletion for lack of evidence of coverage. -Dewelar (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've expanded the article substantially since my vote. I found some fair sources for it. -Dewelar (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond the presumption of inherent notability for such athletes, the article provides adequate sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nightmare (album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

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

There is not enough information to make this article stand on its own. It was not an official single released by Avenged Sevenfold therefore does not meet the WP:SINGLE requirements for a published page. The article also fails to fulfill the requirement stated on the WP:Single page "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Kevon100 ^Talk!_{If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm❻❻❻} 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There no substantial sources that indicate any notability for this article. King Ruby (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually "Welcome To The Family" will be the second single, look here: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16697 GD1223 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Nightmare (album). The song is slightly newsworthy in conjunction with drummer's death, but since it is not a single the matter can be mentioned at the album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cum shot

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

Article money shot basically covers this concisely. As a separate article it is tending to be disruptive. Basically just a slang term bastardised from mainstream film-makers lingo, no need for a separate article. See: Arguments To Avoid WP:EVERYTHING DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Vodello (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an ample number of reliable sources on the issue. It's a sex article, it's going to get its share of vandalism, but the only thing that's making it disruptive right now is the nominator trying to get his uncited introduction in and the images out. I would say that if money shot is "mainstream film-makers lingo", cum shot already has undue bias on that page, and cum shot is already much larger than money shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is probably more likely to be a target of vandalism as it is basically a vulgarism unlike other many other article titles on sexual topics. You can say "it will get it's share of vandalism", yet every time it does it is wasting Admin and other editors time. Your ad hominem about me being disruptive is groundless. I have discussed many possible changes on the talk page. Are you suggesting that following wikipedia policy and discussing my changes are the same as vandalism? It was you who said to me on the discussion there "If you want to delete this article, I invite you to take it to WP:AFD" DMSBel (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If you actually read WP:EVERYTHING, you'll see that it refers to our notability and verifiability guidelines, which say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." On the talk page of the article, I found three citations of the definition of "cum shot" from university presses that are easily reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Money shot in to this article. "Cum shot" is a much wider known term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't the same article, or shouldn't be. Everyone keeps saying money shot is about mainstream filmmaking, which cum shot isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that "cum shot" is a more widely known term is very dubious. To claim so is nothing more than conjecture.

Comment - This is a better article than money shot. That article should be merged into this one. Both should not be allowed to stand on the basis of the existence of both constituting a content fork. The graphic is unnecessary and inappropriate. —Carrite, Oct. 3, 2010.

Delete but Redirect I agree with Carrite about the graphic. However the article on money shot only needs a little expansion and that term is very much a part of a cinematographer's lingo. It would be inappropriate to submerge that money shot article into "cum shot", firstly because it has a wider usage than just in pornography. Secondly, people may look "money shot" up without awareness of any of the connotations given it by pornographers, they should not be directed to an article specifically on the usage of the term in pornography. Thirdly the term money-shot has been longer in use. It might be preferable to redirect (searches for cum-shot) to a particular part of the article on money shot refering to it's use in pornography. DMSBel (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is now a widely-accepted mainstream definition of "money shot" which might be encyclopedically covered. The sexual content now in money shot should be stripped out and moved to cum shot with a dab line at the top. Writing a valid money shot article would be a task, but I think it could be done. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

The article on money shot could probably do with some expansion to the the definition of the term as part general/mainstream film-making lingo (that is in it's primary meaning, without the connotations given to it through adoption by pornographers). This should not be too difficult to source. And I will do some internet searches as I have time.User: DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand "money shot". Money shot is a mainstream film term for the one special effect that is the scene people go to the movie for. A great examples is in the movie Grand Canyon (film), where Steve Martin's character explains a money shot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree as regards money-shot being a mainstream/filmmaking term. As regards Steve Martins' character in a film, I think that might be stretching the definition of a reliable source. He is after all a commedian not a cinematographer. User: DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a perfectly legitimate term. --13² 06:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is covered in the article on money shot (DMSBel)62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in this instance "cum" is either deliberate, or accidental mispelling of "come", thus a Corruption (linguistics). DMSBel (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cum" is the commonly accepted spelling of the noun for seminal ejaculate, although the verb seems to still be often spelled traditionally. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

Keep even though it is a "repulsive" subject for some it still is a notable word/name of a sexual act.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a repulsive subject, however it is not the name of a sexual act.DMSBel (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NOTCENSORED, and "cum shot" is a sexual act, and differs slightly from "money shot", which is specifically a "cinematic" cum shot in pornography. The two words are not synonymous, though they are linked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically: if anything, Money shot should be merged into Cum shot, as it is essentially the way a cum shot is used in pornography. A section about its cinematic use, and the alternative term "money shot" in this context, would be appropriate. "Money shot" itself appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article, however. Money shot clearly has other meanings than cum shot, so I propose dabifying it (see Talk:Money shot). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree about merging money shot into "cum shot" - I have already explained above why this would be a bad-idea. In any case there would need to be a proposal for a merger first, this is only an AFD discussion. Very much agree Money shot definitely is notable in itself as a term apart from usage in pornography. DMSBel (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, who exactly are you agreeing with there? Money shot isn't notable outside of pornography, as far as I'm aware. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was agreeing with you as I thought you were saying the article on money shot should be kept. if you look there you will see it has a much broader meaning, though there needs to be some expansion to the article, the article on cum-shot explains how "money shot" is used outside the porn industry.DMSBel (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I remembered seeing a money shot article previously, I was probably thinking of part of the cum shot article. The pornography section could mainly be merged into cum shot (and most of it is already covered as well), and the sourcing is weak or non-existent for anything other than the pornographic meaning. I will have a look for some sources before commenting on whether or not Money shot should be kept or merged into Cum shot, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re: money shot; a brief google search for "money shot" -porn reveals that there are several reliable sources for meanings of "money shot" which aren't pornographic. In journalism for example, a "money shot" is a photograph which is valuable for use in a news story. Working on Money shot would be a good idea. Cum shot, however, is clearly very notable and not limited to the pornography industry, either. So keep both and expand Money shot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thats good, I had not seen that (journalistic) usage, but it should be covered in the article on money-shot. I still don't agree with keep "cum shot", it could all be covered fairly concisely in money-shot to my mind. I'll add that (regarding journalism) now.DMSBel (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly off-topic, but I have proposed that Money shot be dabified, with Cum shot as one of the entries: see Talk:Money shot#Disambiguation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that to have an article called "cum-shot" really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. This is not Urban Dictionary - I simply do not see why it needs to be kept, except stubborness on the part of some editors. Is it really too much to ask that everyone step back a moment and think about this. DMSBel (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It easily meets the notability guidelines, and you haven't provided a convincing argument for deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I theoretically agree with DMSBel, that ideally an encyclopedia would make an article called "Cum Shot" or a sexual "Money Shot" article go away, but it seems pretty clear that either or both could meet notability guidelines and pass any AfD challenge. I think the best approach is to split the sexual content from "Money Shot," since that has evolved into a mainstream cinematographic term, and to concentrate the sexual content into "Cum Shot." I'm generally in favor of the depornification of Wikipedia, but this is one that can't be dodged, methinks. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

Let's remember that wikipedia is not censored and that "I don't like it" is not a reason for deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not censored. Send this failure to the archives rapidly please. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can go to the archives in due time 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And not censored is not a reason for keeping! Carrite, I agree, money shot is definitely now a mainstream cinematic term, and has been for quite a while. I made the point that it is better to seek reasons that remain within policy, rather than searching out just those particular policies that can asserted selectively to back up something someone wants to keep. The flip-side of "I don't like it" is "I like it", neither in themselves are reasons. Is anyone here not heartily-sick of seeing WP:NOTCENSORED trotted out ad nauseam. I don't make a point of trudging through the toxic mess that the pornography project is to blame for. I didn't set it up. This is an utterly serious matter for wikipedians. What is to be done if a project turns into fetid swamp? I just wonder where reason has gone in these deletion discussions. Is it due to a lack of blood supply to the brain? Quite possibly.62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) — 62.254.133.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And WP:NOTCENSORED is a reason for keeping, when the argument for deletion is "I don't like it, it should be censored". Note in fact that WP:NOTCENSORED is a wikipedia policy. As an addendum, since you feel that it is "better to seek reasons that remain within policy", please give a policy-based argument rather than simply making mildly offensive comments about other !voters here and protesting that you don't like pornographic references in wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:DMSBel, posting once again without bothering to sign in. We're not heartily sick of seeing WP:NOTCENSORED trotted out, because we're not trying to get perfectly notable articles deleted because we consider the material they cover distasteful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's me (DMSBel). I forgot to sign in. What can I say - sorry. Speak for yourself re. not-censored. I am sick of seeing it used as though it permits anything. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, ideally, an encyclopedia which has any pretense to covering even a portion of the sum of human knowledge without censorship or POV should include such an obviously notable topic. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow? While clearly numbers can't represent the consensus themselves, it seems unlikely that an AfD with a single WP:IDON'TLIKEIT delete !vote (the nom's) and 8 policy keeps after 6 days stands a snowball's chance in hell of being turned to delete by tomorrow. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that this is not decided on numbers, but I would be interested ,not i hasten to add, for the sake of flogging a dead horse, but just as I am not familiar with everything on Wikipedia, how is consensus determined? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Nikolayevsky

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

Notability of the person is not proved. The article in ru.wiki is deleted in cause of this. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable author. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find no reliable sources covering the subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree..cannot show sufficient notability Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable enough to be censored for 22 years, and to generate political pressure in Russia to keep a more recent work unpublished. If he's been heard of in the Kremlin I'd say that's pretty darn notable. Has written several works. If we are not familiar with him in the west, does not mean he is not notable. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, have you got any sources for any of that? Significant coverage in reliable sources is the primary criterion for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to find out more. A lot of the webpages are difficult to translate : However he is listed at the EBSEES [[1]] also here [[2]]. Without translating this it would be difficult to estimate his notability. Could be important. Let's not be hasty.62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read german, the two sources you provide establish that he is the author of a couple of books, and nothing more. Being a author does not translate automatically to notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't know a lot on this yet so let's not be hasty. It's easy enough to add a few ^{[citation needed]}'s to the article which i shall do. I suggest we let it stay, till more research is done. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that the article has no reliable sources, and that when I search Google for him in news, books, and scholar, I get 0 hits. That does not bode well for establishment of his notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely an issue with the spelling of his name, try in Russian - Валерий Михайлович Николаевский, or Valerij Nikolaevskij. I have found several links. He is definitely a poet. I have put some of his poetry through babel-fish, into english (probably not best translation) however I think this is important. Let's give this a bit of time. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources with show significant coverage of the article subject, present them, there is no reason to be coy. Examples of his work are not really relevant, what we need are reviews of his work, awards he has received, coverage of him in newspapers and magazines, that kind of thing. Russian sources are fine, but I ask that you provide translations. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did no-one actually look at the article, everything is sourced reliably. Look at the links - Standford University - Library and Academic Resources (SU-LAIR) for example. Would not be on Stanford's database if he was not notable. Will continue to look for reviews etc. Please remove from deletion to give time for thorough research to be done. 2.45 am here, can't work all through the night! Thanks62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability, see WP:AUTHOR. IMO, the sources in the article do not meet these criteria. The mere fact that the subject has published works does not meet the bar. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one of his works is on Stanford University Library Database would you not say that is evidence enough of notability? And as the content regarding his one of his works being censored for 22 years is verifiable then should we not regard his notability as self-evident on that ground? I'll be happy to expand the references, as suitable material is located. A quick Google search is no indication of notability or lack of it. Lack of coverage is not necessarily the same as lack of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the relevant policies. Having a book listed in the Stanford University Library Database does not establish the notability of the author, and lack of significant coverage in reliable sources is pretty much the definition of lack of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Publishing a book is not grounds for notability per WP:AUTHOR. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanford University is a reliable source, it has limited financial resources so does not include every book published. As a University it would obviously want to include only works of scholarly importance. We know they would not list every book published. So it is not simply a case that he has just published a book. It is also kept for perusal by scholars. He has had several books published, and according to a reliable independent academic source linked to in the article one of those was censored for 22 years. Here is what WP:NOTCENSORED was meant to be used for. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 3 of the "references" in the article were circular citations to wikipedia clones. The ones that remain are simply pages that state the book exists, not why it should be notable. The marginal cost to include a book in a database rounds to zero. Furthermore, I read the google translation of the one seller page that had a "review" [3] identifying the views as fringe. Therefore, I am now even more firmly convinced the article should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. I will not respond to any further comments unless they include a reliable source linked. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to quarrel, I have looked at the academic site, and yes it links to wikipedia, which I had not noticed at first. In discussing this lets remember WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and Don't be inconsiderate [[4]]. I shall take out the reference link I put in, it wasn't done to provoke. However it would be good idea to retain the article and add expert-subject to see if there can be some further sources not available online located. We need to remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP. I have only come to this article last night for the first. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was at one time an expert in comparative literature, and the mere fact that he's a living person and there are no references in google suggest that he's not a notable subject. I suggest that since you have such a keen interest, if the article is deleted, that you create an account and request the article be moved to your user space. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would certainly consider doing that in the event of deletion, could you point me to somewhere on wikipedia that gives guidance on how to do that. However in the meantime would you be prepared to consider keeping the article for a little while longer and adding the expert-subject template (see discussion page)[[5]] 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me whether or not to keep the article. If it is deleted, you can request that the person that closes it move it. Not all such requests are honored. You can also ask that a deletion be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Will wait and see the outcome, thanks for explaining the options available. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of search results above are due to variations in spelling of his name: I ran another search and it has come up with more results. These need to be checked more thoroughly. [[6]] 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9mm Jonson

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

Article's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN The article appears to be speculative. The citations were/are a red herring that failed to provide any information nor were germane regarding the subject matter discussed. The article looks good but fails because there is nothing to write about in the end in reality. Article should be deleted unless the claims can be substantiated. Even Jonson Arms site does not have info regarding the 9mm Jonson. The cartridge is a project that has been in the works for 25 years without being fruitful. It is likely a pet project by Jonson vis a vis Jonson Arms. Apart from Jonson Arms no one seems interested enough to discuss the topic or write about it.

Possible conflict of interest WP:COI

Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry

Please check Talk:7.62 Jonson regarding the latter two issues. DeusImperator (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another example of someone's personal project. Did a nice job on layout, but serious POV issues and nothing to establish notability, probably because there aren't any good sources. This and 6.5 Jonson and 7.62 Jonson are mostly cut-paste also. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 12:12, 6 October 2010 Brookie (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Farid Rasulov" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Rasulov) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Rasulov

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

Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Found no reliable sources to verify the content. Goodvac (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone removed my blpprod a while back. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to delete this article, we might as well delete this gallery (File:Farid rasulov CG1.jpg, File:Farid rasulov CG2.jpg, File:Farid rasulov CG3.jpg, File:Farid rasulov CG4.jpg, File:Farid rasulov CG5.jpg, File:Farid rasulov CG6.jpg, File:SOBAKI.jpg) :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 11:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's a Gamble Vol. 2

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

Album does not appear to meet WP:ALBUM notability guidelines. Musician does not have own page (only listed as part of a larger group). This page has 2 links to reviews, but not enough sustained coverage to show the album is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the Albums Project there should first be an article for the artist before their album articles are viable. An article for King Magnetic has already been deleted and redirected to Army of the Pharaohs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Magnetic). And even though the album article has a lot of info about sidekicks, that does not matter if King Magnetic has not yet achieved his own independent notability. I would recommend adding simple entries for his two albums to the Discography section at Army of the Pharaohs. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everythings a Gamble Vol. 1

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

Album does not appear to meet WP:ALBUM notability guidelines; musician himself does not have a page (only as part of a larger group). This page has no references or other indication of independent notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the Albums Project there should first be an article for the artist before their album articles are viable. An article for King Magnetic has already been deleted and redirected to Army of the Pharaohs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Magnetic). And even though the album article has a lot of info about sidekicks, that does not matter if King Magnetic has not yet achieved his own independent notability. I would recommend adding simple entries for his two albums to the Discography section at Army of the Pharaohs. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kirwan

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

Orphan article (tagged since April 2010) about non-notable person. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as sufficiently notable. (But then I created it, so I am a little biased.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What exactly is he sufficiently notable for? The naval award means he was an outstanding naval student, but its not a notable award (in the wikipedia sense of notability). His appearance on Jeopardy is pretty much a run-of-the-mill sort of thing. There's some human interest local coverage ([7], [8]) but that's not much and certainly doesn't elevate him beyond WP:BLP1E. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand fully your point, however, this is one of those cases where the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts; to wit:

1) U.S. Navy -- certainly not notable career-wise yet, but this is current reality

2) Jeopardy! -- obviously some Jeopardy! people are notable but his brief tenure would not make him so, but is included as fact (what you refer to as "human interest local coverage")

3) Conservative activist -- a little more unique (also "human interest coverage", albeit maybe not local)

4) Author of rather radical economics thesis supporting the existence of "sweatshops", which provoked almost universal condemnation, including citations from such luminaries as Amartya Sen and Theodore Schultz, among others (see article text). This I would say is the most important and notable facet, which, combined with the other facets makes him, in my opinion, notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely not notable. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE completely. Being on a game show and only winning two rounds is not notability. There is no real evidence of activism. Lastly, writing a paper for a second-rate university that garners some local criticism is not notability either, and his stance isn't even all that controversial or unpopular. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"his stance isn't even all that controversial or unpopular": Really, I didn't know there were many people who publicly support sweatshops. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read sweatshop. Or, take a sociology class, then; this is one of the topics that any community college or university would likely cover as part of the curriculum. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The case for point 4 is heavily overstated. Referencing some letters to the editor in a campus paper is far from provoking universal condemnation, and name-dropping Amartya Sen and Theodore Schultz is rather disingenuous as they did not comment on Kirwan's article but were quoted as part of the letters to teh editor. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"is rather disingenuous as they did not comment on Kirwan's article but were quoted as part of the letters to teh [sic] editor": if that is so, I apologize and strike the comment. I was led to believe by the opposing students' language that those economists had directly commented on Kirwan's rather extreme (in my opinion) position. It was not my intent to be disingenuous. I won't defend the article any further than I have already commented. If it merits deletion so be it. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - none of the references appear to have covered the subject of this article in any detail given their titles and what's sourced to them (most are now dead links) and I agree with Whpq's assessment of the two additional references they found. A few fairly unremarkable personal achievements don't add up to notability, particularly given that this falls under the scope of WP:BLP which requires strong sourcing and gives subjects a right to privacy unless it's clear they're notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per NickD. Anotherclown (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ElectroIN Label

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

The article has questionable notability and complete lack of references.Talktome^(Intelati) 20:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artists listed in the article have no links to them, so they either don't exist or aren't notable enough. Also I cannot find reliable sources on Google. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Doesn't seem appropriate for English version of Wikipedia, but maybe it could be redirected to an Armenian version. Not sure if these are reliable or not, but did find the following notations: 1, 2, and on Amazon here, here and a few others. --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boparai (clan)

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

No reliable sources found on the web. Most websites on the first page got their info from Wikipedia anyway. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find no sources for this topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nuujinn no reliable sources Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Franchi

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

Initially I tried to salvage this article by adding more information and citations, however it turns out that Discogs is not a reliable source, which is a verdict of community consensus. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had PROD'd this article as I could not find reliable independent sources of information (incidentally, the article appears to have been created by the person themself, but that is a separate issue which will be dealt with after this AfD is completed), and TYelliot had contested that - for full disclosure, I pointed TYelliot (on the article's talk page) in the direction of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Discogs which explains why discogs is not counted as a reliable source. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN let alone WP:NOTABILITY, so this article should be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find some passing mention in reliable sources, but there appears to be no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Setlock

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

Non-notable actor with a non-referenced article. Falls below WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming everything from Imdb checks out at better sources, the actor has had at least five supporting or guest roles on TV, as well as stage work in New York. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added references that I believe establish notability, and flagged the article for rescue, as I am certain there are more reliable sources to be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portland Tribune has an article about him. [9] Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you'll see he was interviewed on a major radio show also, as well as elsewhere. Dream Focus 19:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with additional sources meets notability Infinitely Humble (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone thinks there's anything here worth merging let me know. It might be better to write a new sourced section from scratch in the parent article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University Police Department

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

NN campus police department. GrapedApe (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school's article. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every college has one. Not even worth merging. Figureofnine (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unreferenced, nothing here worthy of an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to say the least. That includes after sifting out all the knee-jerk emotional commentary from the retention side; in which afterwards I still could not find a consensus for deletion. –MuZemike 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series (2010)

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

Future event, not yet notable. Disputed PROD. Chzz ► 15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable its sourced no need to delete.--Steam Iron 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It'll happen in 7 weeks time! And if it doesn't happen, it'll be even more notable. Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Crystal ball isn't a reason to delete: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.55.24 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't overlook "if the event is notable" while focusing on "almost certain to take place". For notability to exist, there must exist significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For my part, I am looking for notability. Well promoted does not qualify. My76 Strat 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is substantial news coverage on the series and plenty of reliable sources on the web. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep- Meets exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Keep- It's a future event that will happen. Plus, the WWE is already doing early promotion of the event.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can any of you explain how it meets notability requirements - are there any independent, reliable sources? Chzz ► 19:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this event will certainly happen. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Super Mega Keep You go to WWE.com Chzz you will see that this event will take place and buddy your getting into a battle you can't win if your trying to delete this by yourself.--Nascarking 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless one of you keep voters can find some significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie, not links to the WWE), then this future event hasn't risen to the level of notability required. Most of the previous !votes are grounded in WP:ILIKEIT rather than in policy or guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous. I've seen WWE PPV's that have pages at least 2 months in advance on here and it's never been a problem with them so what's wrong with this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that, like every article, this one needs to meet the general notability guideline by having coverage in sources that are unrelated to the subject. All of the references in this article are to the WWE's own websites, which are primary sources. Neither the nominator nor myself have been able to find secondary sources, which is what every article needs. Thats why the nominator and myself think the article should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe if you would look at the page you would see there are other sources not just from wwe.com--Steam Iron 12:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. One to the PPV channel you can buy it from, one to the arena where its happening. Whilst the Fanhouse reference may be to a reliable source, none of the other ones meet that requirement. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Let's put this to a vote and end this stupid discussion now. This shouldn't have been put up for deletion in the 1st place, because the events gain more information over time and more sources to back them up. Lets vote so we can get back to doing real work.--Nascarking 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is keep and it seems overwhelmingly clear that keep is superior to delete in this discussion but that's just me. Your thoughts?--Nascarking 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not getting a vote, mate. f o x 23:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a discussion, not a vote. In closing it, an administrator will evaluate the policy- and guideline-based arguments presented here.

I like it is not a good argument.
The existence of other articles does not necessarily mean this one should exist.

In the nomination, I mentioned WP:CRYSTAL, and several people have pointed to 'exception 1'. Yes, indeed, we can have articles on future events, as long as they are notable. The point of 'Crystal' is, we cannot predict future notability. Saying that 'Of course it will happen, of course it will be notable' does not help, right now. We can only view the current situation.

Self-published sources - ie the websites of the event, the ticket-sellers, etc - may be used for simple, neutral facts, but that does not help show why the event is notable. Coverage of the series, on the web, does not help either. Notability is not inherited. Is this specific event notable?

Please, stick to policy-based arguments; if you can show why this event is, right now, notable - through significant coverage in independent reliable sources - then, fine, great; please show the links, and we can keep it. Chzz ► 01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep My dear Chzz, I think you made that issue into your personal vendetta. You need independent sources? Well, the American Airlines Arena has it in its schedule, inDemand offers it for purchase, ticketmaster is selling tickets since June - all of them non-WWE sources. What else do you need? Would you like the White House to confirm it? Or FoxNews? With your line of argument, there shouldn't be a wikipedia-entry for the next SuperBowl as well. Simply ridiculous. Blocpark (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please keep discussion focused on the article, see WP:AFDEQ, particularly bullet #3. The comparison to the SuperBowl isn't valid, the closest WWE equivalent of the SuperBowl is WrestleMania. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the WWE sources are barely enough for a keep. In the future, editors should wait for secondary source coverage of the event to be posted. Normally, this kind of coverage only starts after the previous pay-per-view event is done, when WWE starts promoting the next event. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz, AmericanAirlines Arena has it listed on its homepage, and on their events calender. Ticketmaster lists it here, and here. If you won't believe that these sites are telling the truth then I don't know what to tell you because AmericanAirlines Arena is NOT I repeat NOT Affiliated in any way with WWE, they're just hosting the event. Ticketmaster is just selling tickets for the event like they do for any event.--Nascarking 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jtalledo, Ticketmaster has been selling tickets for this event since June which is 5 months before the event and this is an event that has taken place since 1987 so we already know whats going on and what sources to look for before you guys do.--Nascarking 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing Chzz if we did delete the article, me, Dcheagle, or 3bulletproof16 would just bring it back up in 2 or 3 weeks since that's when information about this event start to really roll in from WWE.com. Why delete the article if me or one of the other members of wikiwrestling would bring it back up in the near future?--Nascarking 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The venue listing it in their calender, and companies selling tickets, and so on, is of course not independent.

Nascarking, yes, I'm sure that - once there is appropriate coverage - we could have an article. Not a problem. The point is, if there is no such coverage yet, we should not have the article yet.

If deleted, you can get a copy in userspace, add referenced facts, and move it back - I will not object at all; I fully support us having articles on absolutely anything that is notable. Currently - this event isn't.

My understanding of WP:V and WP:N is that we only have articles on things which have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If I am wrong in that opinion, then this will be kept, and I'll certainly change my viewpoint; I'm always quite happy to be corrected. Frankly, right now, I'm wondering if perhaps I do have it all wrong; I see here that lots of quite experienced editors are claiming we should keep the article, despite their being no independent references. So, if I am misunderstanding things totally, then I'm sorry, and I hope I can try to understand why this should be kept. If anyone can explain to me which policies or guidelines say we should keep it, I would honestly be grateful.

I thought this AFD would be really simple. That's why my reasoning, up top, was so short. 'Future event, not yet notable'. That's all I can see, really. I'm sure we all accept that, for something to be 'notable' in Wikipedia, it needs independent coverage. I can't find that. Are we really saying that, because people are selling tickets, it has significant coverage? I really don't understand. Chzz ► 05:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, would you explain to me in your interpretation how AmericanAirlines Arena (which I will remind you is NOT I repeat NOT AFFILIATED in any manner with World Wrestling Entertainment), or Ticketmaster.com (which is also NOT I repeat NOT AFFILIATED with WWE) is not a independent source? Because you said and I quote "The venue (AmericanAirlines Arena) listing it in their calender, and companies (Ticketmaster) selling tickets, and so on, is of course not independent." your words not mine. I don't understand how they couldn't be, there has been information about this event since February when it was announced Survivor Series was originally announced it wasn't going to occur this year until WWE decided to add it back to the PPV lineup back in June.--Nascarking 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand things, AAA are selling tickets to this event. They have a vested interest in the promotion of the event. Simply put, is in their interests to gain greater promotion of the event; they stand to gain from it. That is what I mean by 'of course not independent'. I hope that clarifies. Best, Chzz ► 03:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of CRYSTAL; this is a future event and a commercial pay-per-view venture. An article before it happens constitutes promotion, in my view. After it happens it becomes a potential topic for inclusion, based upon general notability guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Chzz can we just drop this whole stupid pointless discussion I mean me or another member of my wikiproject are just gonna bring this back up in 3 weeks so this pointless to delete this. I just want this pointless debate on a deletion to end.--Nascarking 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been no significant coverage (see WP:Significant coverage) in newspapers, magazines, books, scholarly articles, broadcast news; no coverage in reliable sources (see WP:Reliable sources) which are financially and editorially independent of the event and the WWE. The arena may indeed report on scheduled events, ticket sales, past events, but it is not financially independent of the event, and has no editorial policy nor fact-checking as do reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and in that light cannot be used to publicize events. Notability is not temporary - once this event is over, it's unlikely to matter to anyone outside of the wrestling fan community, and will not merit a standalone article. Other articles with similar problems exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) but we're only talking about this article in isolation. When the article is brought back up in "3 weeks" it's going to be re-nominated for all the very same reasons. Because this is a one-off event, it is unlikely to meet standards for notability spelled out in WP:Notability (events). Though notability requirements are not met for this as a standalone article, it may meet requirements for inclusion in an article which includes an overview of 2010 WWE-related tours. For further information about arguments to avoid in discussions like this, see WP:Arguments to avoid.--Lexein (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you obviously don't know anything about Wrestling PPV history, our articles have long merited being standalone articles. 7 of our articles are Featured Articles and 67 Good Articles. So for you to say it doesn't matter to anyone other than us is a grouse exaggeration and not true. And another thing, there has been enough coverage of this since February. WWE had originally intended not to have this event take place but in June decided to put Survivor Series back on the PPV lineup. Until you can disprove to me on here and not with Wiki Policies and that crap, prove to me how American Airlines Arena (which I will AGAIN remind you AGAIN that it is NOT I AGAIN repeat NOT AFFILIATED with WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT W W E) (The arena which is owned by the city of Miami) (AND PLAYS HOST TO THE MIAMI HEAT) (HOW MUCH MORE SIMPLER THAN THAT CAN I MAKE IT), HOW IT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE Frigging event on its list of events. HOW HOW HOW IS IT NOT!!!--Nascarking 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout. The fact that the AAA link has a large button to 'buy tickets' hints at its lack of independence. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(No need to shout - see Articles for deletion etiquette and especially Civil behavior). "Wiki Policies and that crap" are how we express the consensus-reached community choices of what's in and what's out, and what's best practice, at Wikipedia. Requested detailed explanation follows: I never said the arena was "affiliated", I said the arena isn't independent. To specifically answer your question: the arena is not, and cannot be, financially independent from any event which it is paid to host. As long as the arena is paid to host the event, it is not financially independent. Therefore the arena isn't generally independent about this event, therefore cannot be arbitrarily considered an independent reliable source for the purposes of article notability. Here at Wikipedia, notability is determined by independent reliable sources. Note that I'm not saying the arena shouldn't be used as a source, but it necessarily gets less weight than a newspaper (even newspaper blog), magazine, book, scholarly paper, etc. Since you bring up featured articles, if you look at others, you'll see that they all use verifiable (see WP:Verifiability), solidly independent reliable sources, with full editorial and financial independence. FA might use a primary or non-independent source once in a while, but the independent sources are there in abundance. In case anyone wonders, I'm using (see xxx), so that the wikilinks aren't ignored. Oh, and here's a great essay: WP:Independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate if I've answered your above question satisfactorily. --Lexein (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good god just delete the damn thing so we can all move on to something better like improving articles which is what we are doing here. Someone from WP:PW will recreate the damn thing in a few weeks ether way.--Steam Iron 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pointless to have the article deleted. Would you all be satisfied with a redirect to the Main Survivor Series Article until the event is like a few weeks out so we can end this pointless debate?--Nascarking 02:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you didn't answer my question, would you be satisfied with a redirect instead of deleting the article. That way everything would still be there in 2 or 3 weeks so we don't have to start whole article from scratch again? Because that's what we typically do with the articles before the events. Create them 4 to 5 months before then redirect them to the appropriate article until 2 months before the event when we take off the redirect.--Nascarking 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you, Chzz or anyone who wants this article gone even though it's gonna be brought back up in 2 or 3 weeks should answer this question. Why do it even though it's gonna be brought back in 2 or 3 weeks. Which makes this deletion debate pointless. If this were 2 or 3 months away, your point on deletion might make more sense but just a little more than a month away from the event makes absolutely no sense.--Nascarking 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative question would be - Why, without any reliable sources to back it up, do people create these articles in the first place. What's the rush? Just because you like it doesn't mean that our guidelines should be broken to have an article right this minute. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We create the articles a few months ahead of time and then redirect them to the appropriate article until 2 or 3 months away from the event and we do to have sources. They usually don't start saying anything until the 1st match leading up to the PPV event has been announced usually on Monday Night Raw. We have a whole list of our sources on our WikiProject.--Nascarking 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just drop this whole thing Please? It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are in a stalemate and are just fighting instead of working on a compromise. I'd more than settle for a redirect to Survivor Series at this point but this is beyond ridiculous. We have been at this debate for 5 days and haven't gotten anywhere. Can we agree to drop this whole stalemated debate and end this, both sides are not making progress.--Nascarking 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright since no one has responded to any of my recent comments I'll assume that dropping this is out. But I'm willing to agree to a compromise. Would you all agree to a redirect because I have absolutely no problem redirecting the page for 2 weeks as long as it's redirected to Survivor Series or List of WWE pay-per-view events. Would that work for you guys instead of just deleting the article?--Nascarking 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the PPV is next month and is already scheduled to take place. There is already a poster for the event. Why wouldn't you keep it?—User:Zsmalls629, 8 October 2010

That's what I've been saying for half this debate.--Nascarking 20:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Why wouldn't you keep it?" is asked. Answers: (1) Because it is a future event and encyclopedias describe what has happened in the past rather than predicting what will be happening in the future; (2) Because it is a commercial event and the promotion of WWE Pay-Per-View events is not part of Wikipedia's job description. Quite the opposite, it is offensive to many Wikipedians, such as myself; (3) Because the future event is not documented by independent sourcing, only by promotional hype and reprinted press releases. Yes, this discussion was long and pointless, and I don't think anybody is arguing that a FUTURE article on the COMPLETED event is out of line, only that articles like this should be done after the fact, not before it. Hopefully these concerns will be taken into consideration with respect to future WWE event-articles. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.

Comment. Super Bowl XLV and XLVI have already been created. So has UFC 122 through 127. All of these events are months to two years in advance. It would follow that these events fall under first exemption listed here. The Survivor Series is not only one of the four original WWE PPV events, making it just as notable as WrestleMania, it may also be the last one ever held. Would it be unreasonable to assume that the event also meets this criteria? A cursory search also shows several independent sources for the event which pass WP:RS: here from the Bleacher Report, here and here from InsidePulse.com, here from SportsNewsandScores.com, and here from Sescoops.com. 72.74.226.41 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fáy András Economic High School

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

This orphan article is about a subject that fails to meet the notability guideline, in particular because of a lack of reliable sources. While there are two sources listed, one is an offline source in Hungarian, and one is at a site blacklisted by Google and Firefox because of malware infestation. A search for alternative sources to establish notability, or even third-party sources to establish facts presented in the article, came up empty. Since it was created, it has received no substantial updates. There is no obvious destination article to accept a merger of the content from this article. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These searches are more likely to be successful than the ones above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those searches seem to come up pretty short on reliable sources to establish notability, as well... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of per se notability of secondary schools. —Carrite, Oct. 3, 2010.
Keep per the established consensus on the notability of secondary schools; no reason for an exception has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that I can learn, where is this established consensus documented? I haven't been able to find it, nor a list of exceptions. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that, and while I can't say I fully agree with it, I acknowledge it as current policy, and that this AfD is unlikely to succeed. It seems to me that rather than deleting the article, the done thing here would be to stub it within an inch of its life, given how little of it is cited or verifiable. I'd certainly prefer to build it up, but aside from the per se notability, the rest of the publishing world doesn't seem to find it very notable. If anybody watching has got any leads...? I'll set to copy-editing it in the near future. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely a case of FUTON bias. tedder (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The school exists, even though online information is slim. tedder (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beyond our current de facto policy of keeping verifiable high school articles, I can see references to it under its Hungarian name, "Fáy András Közgazdasági Szakközépiskola" though they are hide to decipher.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qlockwork

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

Fails WP:N; only sourcing is company press releases and one item in TechCrunch. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete hardly any coverage [10]. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only reference is a wikipedia page that also appears to not be referenced. Search does not turn up anything to prove otherwise. AlgebraT (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The High Road Has Less Traffic (book)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Apparent self-promotion. Self-published book, no evidence or assertion of notability, article author has apparent COI. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability. There are only two mentions of the book in Google News; one is a press release and the other (translation) just quotes the author briefly. The book has fourteen 5-star Amazon reviews from accounts with no other reviews posted, and I suspect this article may be part of the same promotional campaign by the publisher. EALacey (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verified EALacey's findings. Of 16 Amazon reviews of the book, all 16 gave five stars (The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, FYI, received an average 3.5 stars. This woman apparently writes better than Shakespeare, and good for her.), and of the 16 reviewers, 15 of them reviewed only this book. WP Article reads like self-promotion for the author AND advertising for the book (double word score!). Who do I ask for a speedy delete around here? Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of notability for the book or its author and suspect self-publicity as suggested by the editors above. --Deskford (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no claim of notability that this meets WP:BK. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the rough consensus indicates. Moreover, the arguments for deletion seem to outweigh the arguments for retention given. –MuZemike 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation University (The Netherlands)

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

i placed a db-a7 tag on this page originally, but it sat there for some time and no admin reviewed it, so i changed the speedy delete to an AfD. article doesn't seem to indicate significance of its subject, no third party reliable sources. says right in the article that this religious school is not accredited by any recognized institution or government. not opposed to keeping the page if anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have just improved the reference syntax. However this looks like a very small Christian ministry. It would not surprise me if it was a one-man band. If so, its notability is limited. It claims to be accredited by certain non-government bodies, but I do not know any of these and so cannot comment on how authoritative this is. Some may be bodies to which one merely has to pay a subscription. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless it's a degree mill of some kind a university has some sort of notability. JASpencer (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite its name, it isn't a university, it's a private institute.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are either to self-published sources or to the web sites of the organisations that allegedly "accredited" this university, but do not actually substantiate these claims. Under "faculty" their website lists just a very few people. No evidence at all that this is more than a very minor outfit styling itself "university" without any real justification. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked hard for evidence that this private school is notable, but there doesn't appear to be any independent sources that back it up. A major concern is the use of the title "university" for such a small school. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quick read up on the classification of universities seems to indicate institutions are usually granted the status by law under the authority of the government of the country/state/province they operate in. this article explicitly states this institution is not recognized by any government in the netherlands. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally a degree-granting institution would be notable, and this outfit claims to offer bacherlor's and master's degrees. However since it is not accredited by ANYONE - not the government, not a private accreditation organization, not even a shell accreditation organization - and since it offers its "degrees" only by correspondence, I do not feel this is a real university worthy of inclusion here. Google search finds only a directory listing and (of course) this article. Created by an WP:SPA; possible conflict of interest. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with the caveat that any can be immediately relisted separately. Bundling articles at AfD, unless they're clearly of equivalent non-notability or fail other policies, is rarely useful. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Article about game show contestant that fails guidelines in wp:notability. Delete for same reasons as listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant).Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar articles as David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and for same WP:BLP1E guidelines:

~~Delete all~~ Delete all but Timanus per WP:BLP1E. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC) [EDITED TO ADD: Timanus was bundled after this comment was written; he may satisfy notability for being a sportswriter as well. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Changed to Keep Timanus, relist others for futher discussion; second choice would be to merge all but Timanus to List of civilian Jeopardy! contestants. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article for Eddie Timanus only briefly mentions his sports-writing career in two sentences. The bulk of the article centers on his appearances on Jeopardy!, which does not meet notability guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Timanus doesn't turn out to be notable, we can move it to Eddie Timanus's Jeopardy! appearance or merge it to a suitable ___location, as there is wide coverage of Timanus's historic run on Jeopardy!. I'm still in the process though of finding sources for Timanus the journalist as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJaguar3 (talk • contribs)

(ec) Sometimes you need to look beyond the Wikipedia article for evidence of notability. In the case of Timanus, he was the subject of at least two news articles in the early 1990s, when he was working as a sports statistician:

(1) Steven Goff. "Timanus paints the picture by numbers". The Washington Post. Feb. 19, 1991. pg. D1.

(2) Bob McCoy. "Keeping score: a feel for the games". The Sporting News. February 26, 1990. Vol. 209, Issue 9. pg. 7.

These articles appeared long before he was on Jeopardy. I can access the former, but can only get an abstract for the latter. I'd be happy to add what I can to the Timanus article, but I'd prefer that you relist the articles separately before I start digging in. Zagalejo^^^ 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that

(3) John O'Connor. "Eagles' Timanus Mr. Nitty-Gritty of CAA Stat Men" Richmond Times-Dispatch. March 2, 1991. pg. D-1

I do have ProQuest, so I'll see if I can find a full-text copy of (1) or (2). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timanus appeared on only eight episodes of the program. There is a comment in the article that states "[His] story became a minor media sensation, with Jeopardy!'s Nielsen ratings rising 15% for Timanus's fourth and fifth games" which has been facgt-tagged for over a year. Based upon the content in his article, the topic does not meet notability guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article supports the claim about the ratings rise. There are many other news articles about his run on Jeopardy. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo^^^ 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A statement about how this person is notable. Being a blind game show contestant is not something that is notable. He didn't set a trend of other blind contestants appearing on Jeopardy! or any other game shows, he's not the biggest winner ever, he's not xxx or yyy etc. He's simply not a notable person. There are thousands of sports writers and other contributors to news publications who do not have articles here. Timanus is not notable enough to warrant an article here. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he didn't "set a trend" because it's hard for the typical blind person to do well at Jeopardy. It's not just a matter of hearing the questions; he had to keep track of which selections on the board had already been answered. Also, since he couldn't read the clues, and didn't know how long they would be, he basically had to guess the right moment in which to ring in. [11] Just one win would have been pretty impressive, but the fact that he put together a winning streak is even more impressive.

But perhaps more important: what policy or guideline supports your argument, anyway? Third-party sources took note of his accomplishments. That's what we need to focus on. Zagalejo^^^ 01:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E supports my argument. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the news articles from the early 1990s don't count? Zagalejo^^^ 01:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles still have not changed the reasoning for deletion based on WP:BLP1E. He's not notable for anything other than being a blind Jeopardy! contestant, and his appearance has had no notable impact to the show, television, culture, etc. whatsoever. There are not articles for hearing impaired/deaf contestants who have appeared on Wheel of Fortune, handicapped/wheelchair-using contestants who have appeared on Price is Right, etc. These are not notable criteria. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you understand that he also received media coverage long before appearing on Jeopardy? Zagalejo^^^ 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for notability that's been presented thus far, and the section about his early life in the article contains a ref to a broken link. The bulk of the article is about his appearance on Jeopardy! and contains no info that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the articles earlier in this discussion. I'm not using them as the primary grounds for notability, but rather to show that Timanus is not just notable for "one event". He was known in sports media circles before appearing on Jeopardy. And as I said earlier, I'll be willing to add some content about Timanus' earlier years, but I don't want to get started until you relist these articles separately. This AFD is already flying in several directions. You need to help get things under control, so that the people interested in working on these articles can focus on one thing at a time. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are under control. Two editors provided comments and reasons to keep for two of the bundled AFDs and I responded restating my original arguments of how WP:BLP1E applies to both. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still haven't said anything about Spangenberg, Rutter, or Vered, though I'd argue to keep their articles, as well. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist separately. Some of these people (like Frank Spangenberg and Jerome Vered) were on the show multiple times over a span of 10+ years, and received media attention at several points throughout that span. This discussion will become a confusing mess unless it is unbundled. (For the record, I think the Roger Craig discussion should have gone on a bit longer.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles - the articles as described by Sottolacqua violate WP:BLP1E. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong relist 23:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.242.77 (talk)
Relist separately/Keep You claim the same reason to delete as in another AFD, that they "appeared on eight episodes or less" (fewer), but actually most of these people have been on more episodes than that. Madden has been on 22, the second most ever. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Madden, he received media attention not only for appearing on Jeopardy [12], [13], but also for hiking across the country for charity [14], [15]. Zagalejo^^^ 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacksonville.com link is merely a short-answer interview where he responds to questions about embarrassing moments, favorite films, etc. and does not include anything of substance. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing Madden notability on that article alone. It's just one part of the picture. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Two of these articles (Larissa Kelly and Jerome Vered) already survived AfDs. Another (Chuck Forrest) was a DYK. For these reasons alone these articles should not have been listed together. faithless (^speak) 04:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, Chuck Forrest must be retained, given that it was a DYK; it would be absurd to delete a DYK item. --Punchi (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I am just basing it on my look at the first one listed. While the article doesn't list references, a Google News search shows coverage for the winner in multiple papers over several weeks. If the other articles are too small, they can always be merged, but there is no reason to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The articles provide reliable and verifiable sources to support a legitimate claim of notability, and community consensus supports the continued existence and creation of such articles. Alansohn (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—How/why are these people more notable than other game show champions/contestants who do not have articles? Being a champion on a game show and winning $xxx,xxx combined with anecdotal mentions in articles or being part of a human interest story does not make a person notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of articles on contest winners in their incarnation that has been most popular since Wikipedia was started, the reality show contestant. Both old style and new style game shows are well referenced by the media. Denigrating the references as "human interest", doesn't fly, they are still reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator appears to be arguing WP:ALLORNOTHING. I do agree with those who request unbundling, as there are several champions who have enough coverage either (1) for an event article on their appearance on Jeopardy! or (2) have been notable for more than one event that they no longer fall under WP:BLP1E. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument I'm making as other people, originally notable for being game show champions, have articles on Wikipedia that were not included in this AFD (e.g., Ken Jennings, Charles Van Doren, etc). Most of the arguments for keeping the articles are in line with WP:EVERYTHING, which still does not address my argument that the nine articles nominated fall under WP:BLP1E. Ken Jennings clearly is notable for the overwhelming media coverage, documented ratings increase, works and appearances outside of Jeopardy!, etc. Charles Van Doren was part of a major scandal that ultimately resulted in federal intervention. Dan Pawson (part of this AFD), on the other hand, won $170,902 on Jeopardy! in 2007 and won a Tournament of Champions a few years later. This does not make him a notable person that warrants an article here. Larissa Kelly won $223k and later had an article published in a magazine, but the bulk of the article discusses her Jeopardy! appearance and includes some anecdotal unsourced records she holds/held as a female contestant. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why not merge into List of Jeopardy! contestants or for those significant enough to merit their own article, moving the content to Larissa Kelly's Jeopardy! appearance, for example? RJaguar3 | u | t 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed that at least for some contestants, there may be enough coverage of their non-Jeopardy! activities that covering the person could be permissible (as in the case of Timanus). The rest could be merged or renamed as per my comment above, not deleted. Regardless, each contestant has individual merits and should have been listed separately. I'd move to close this debate without prejudice so that the nominator can individually nominate each article (see WP:BUNDLE). RJaguar3 | u | t 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a list of Jeopardy! contestants is not a notable topic, just as a list of Pillsbury Bake-Off competitors is not. These people on their own are not notable—merging all the articles into one list still does not address the notability issue. There's also no reason to have one article renamed "Mr. X's Jeopardy! Appearance" if the original article subject still is not notable and falls under WP:BLP1E. The articles as they stand center only on the Jeopardy! appearances and only anecdotally mention other activities, which still are not notable (submitting an article to a science fiction magazine, walking across the country for charity, etc.).

Except that list would be notable, since the information came from reliable sources. It would be no more, or no less notable by Wikipedia standards than a list of Super Bowl or World Series or US Open winners or any reality competition. I am sure I can make a list of Pillsbury Bake-Off winner too, now that Google has scanned millions of pages of magazines that would contain the names of winners. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably-sourced info is not criteria that solely-proves a subject as notable. See WP:SOURCESEARCH/WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ITEXISTS. The Super Bowl/World Series/US Open competitions are major sporting events seen nationally and/or globally, include major corporate sponsorships, etc. Creating a List of Jeopardy! Champions merely serves as WP:LISTCRUFT and would turn into an indiscriminate list of information. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You love to point to essays and ignore the fundamental Wikipedia rule: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I know that notability is not the only concern. WP:SOURCESEARCH and the other links you provide refer to statements like "a Google search of this contestant turned up over nine thousand results, so she must be notable." In this case (with Madden and Timanus, and I can check the others), there is no claim of myriads of sources; rather, actual sources have been given to demonstrate independent coverage in reliable third-party sources, the sine qua non of notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BLP1E tells us whenever it is deemed that the subject is notable only in connection with one event: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." RJaguar3 | u | t 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case these articles should be redirected to Jeopardy!, not an article listing every champion to ever appear on the show. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You using the strawman fallacy, no one suggested a list of every winner, just the notable ones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to list every champion the show ever had. The name of the article implies that only notable contestants (read: have multiple independent reliable sources verifying the claims about their appearence) will be listed. WP:BLP1E is not the same as WP:N. Unquestionably, Madden and Timanus (and probably lots of the others; I haven't really checked those) have multiple independent reliable sources about their appearance on Jeopardy!. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if you feel closing the debate will be more productive, I'm in favor of that and will individually nominate each article for deletion and restart the process. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck - relist/procedural keep all This is a mass nomination where some of the articles would clearly be kept, others might be mergeable, and I don't think any should be flat-out deleted. Ray^Talk 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do many articles about professional athletes notable only for holding a record (such as John Isner) not violate WP:BLP1E? (Isner's article has lots of career notes, but he wouldn't be notable to anyone outside of indiscriminate tennis aficionados if he hadn't broken a record in a single event.) 271828182 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E keeps expanding in scope, sadly most of people of note in history are WP:BLP1E. Someone recently argued a WP:BLP1E deletion because the subject only had a lengthy New York Times obituary, and that one event, his death was a WP:BLP1E violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more clearly I perceive BLP1E's flaws. The criterion being used is really about the notability of the event, not the person. This is especially clear when you read the explanation of what counts as an event. In five years, Joe the Plumber and Chesley Sullenberger will be BLP1E violations. A "floating" standard of notability is a poor policy guideline for a long-term project like WP. 271828182 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most confusing guideline I have read at Wikipedia, all I get out of it is that if you assassinate the president, you may or may not be able to have your own article. It is clearly one or the other, but I am not sure which. The second helpful thing is telling me that a single event may last a second or several days. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles for nearly every sports figure in every sport, even if their careers were not the least bit notable. Why should this be any different?Spman (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Spin-Offs

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

irrelevant original research completely lacking in factual accuracy. Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. Fails WP:OR Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G3. Absolute garbage. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense Vodello (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ROM cartridge. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game Pak

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

No inherent notability: Could not find reliable third-party sources that cover the subject in detail, article has had a refimprove notice for over a year, no chance to expand the article beyond a simple list of platforms. Prime Blue (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ROM cartridge where the term is used in the article lead. It's just another term for a game cartridge. Someone another 23:34, 3 October 2010 (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) 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Plausible search term, but nothing worth merging. Reach Out to the Truth 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ROM cartridge per above responses. --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heita

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

wikipedia is not a dictionary (urmban dictionary in this case) Melaen (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Armburst (WP:NOTDIC) :pep per 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete from Wikipedia per NAD. Cnilep (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Armburst AlgebraT (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Rubino

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

personal fitness trainer, unclear notability Melaen (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous vanity article, with Twitter comments used as references. Qalana (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article's creator, I'd like to mention I've learned much both while preparing this (first) article, and since it's been listed for deletion review. A long time Wikipedia reader, had no idea the sheer volume of work editors have at this site. Impressed and looking forward to learning enough to help. As to this article, will rework and add additional sources to address the unclear notability. Thank you Kmscli (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added new article from national magazine as source and corrected some citation formatting errors. Thank you. Kmscli (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newspaper/magazine references are adequate secondary source material to meet WP:BIO basic criteria AlgebraT (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional periodical sources successfully establish notability Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything there that convinces me. Also, promotional in places - "Rubino's Workout Videos and tips can be found on the site under their 'Shorts' section ". Peridon (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, again, looking to learn, the videos are not for sale, so it did not occur to me that it would be considered promotional. That reference can certainly be removed. No promotional nature intended. Kmscli (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. All but two of the 20 references provided are self-referential. The only claim of notability comes via footnotes listing Seventeen Magazine and the New York Times, but no link to an article is provided, and I was unable to find the supposed article in searching at the two publications. Google search finds only his website, social media sites, and a blog or two. Google News search finds nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to be the very first to extend a welcome to the three new accounts that have been established [16] [17] [18]. Regarding the latter two, I'm glad that you were able to find the AfD Forum so quickly, and I appreciate all of your contributions to the discussions... Mandsford 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mandsford, thank you very much for the welcome. While looking at the afd process, I have seen quite a few non-welcoming comments to new people, which, while not directed at me were somewhat off putting, so your welcome is very appreciated. MelanieN- I'm sorry the seventeen article is not yet online, it is new. The New York Times should certainly be online, but I only have the hard copy. Thank you for checking.Kmscli (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the citations in the article seem to almost entirely promotional, and I couldn't find anything in google news. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources presented are from Twitter, and I could not find any more coverage on a Google News archives search. Minimal notability, at best, but I'm not seeing it here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is a advertisement. Sources are first party and unreliable. A google search does not find any reputable third party sources. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of sources and the fact that I passionately hate twitter and see any attempt to use it as a source as an issue affecting the very credibility of the project as a whole. (Remove all the Twitter and I still say delete though.) Sven Manguard _Talk 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Murnane

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

The journalist in question is notable, but their isn't reasonable content online. See Google search. — Cargoking talk 12:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is barely paraphrased from here which I would say is a copyright violation. He seems notable but I am surprised how little coverage there is. --NortyNort (Holla) 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article was written by the already-disappeared user "Amurnane", who had also written nothing else on wikipedia.86.42.223.17 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Michig (talk · contribs) at 18:42, 3 October 2010 per G3 (blatant and obvious misinformation). (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les gunnard

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

didn't found any reference about a football player with this name Melaen (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources available, most likely a hoax. The line "1904 he purchased his first car, a 6.7 litre v8 turbocharged Ford mustang that he purchased for 9 strawpennys." gives it away. There weren't any Ford Mustangs during his lifetime. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, as there's no sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a thing in Google.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author has claimed that they made up this person, see User_talk:GB_fan#REASON_FOR_LES_GUNNARD ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The hoax claim is confirmed by the subject purchasing a "6.7 litre v8 turbocharged Ford mustang" in 1904, and "With a prosthetic leg" he fought at Stalingrad, even. I don't think there were any British troops at Stalingrad with any sort of legs. All in all not a bad bit of very fast invention, and I think the creator deserves brownie points for fast thinking. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiley Blades

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

found no reliable sources Melaen (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source means he is a non-notable rapper. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources provided and search did not show adequate notability AlgebraT (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 07:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brigita Crljenić

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

This actor does not appear to meet the notability guidelines in WP:NACTOR or the WP:GNG. The only references in the article appear to be trivial mentions of plays in which she appeared (they are not in English so it is difficult to be sure). VQuakr (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she is a non-notable actor, without significant coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Uncle G deleted as copyright violation ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waldron Cricket Club

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

Although I can confirm (at least) the existence of this club, the reference given doesn't give sufficient information on the club. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this WWW site ("© 2008 - 2010 Heathfield Town. All rights reserved.") credits Heathfield and Waldron: An Illustrated History by Roy Pryce (Heathfield & Waldron Parish Council, 2000, ISBN 0953834409). Whether that's a republication with permission or a paraphrase is unclear, but its almost exact match to this WWW site is suggestive. These could probably be used as sources for a non-copyright-violating article. But Cnsargeant (talk · contribs) was just ganking other people's work wholesale, which of course is not writing at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Brien (footballer born 1991)

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

Non-notable footballer who is yet to play a fully professional game J Mo 101 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On a side note, I did initially try and speedy this since there has been a previous AfD under a slightly different name, but it got declined because the article is "significantly different". J Mo 101 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without a fully pro appearance, he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no appearances at professional level, and a single appearance for a non-league team. Nowhere near notable unless he goes back to Portsmouth. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Half Price 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, fails both WP:Athlete and WP:GNG Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If things improve, try again. Peridon (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebobs mystery with twistery

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

I don't think a single episode deserves a whole article. Either it be merged into a list, or it should simply be deleted. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, not yet aired. As not aired, no chance to have developed cult following. Peridon (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources for this episode. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Staab

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

Tagged for notability since February 2010, no change from that now. Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he has a few brief biographies on various websites, he is not notable enough. Besides his books are mainly directed at specialists. TYelliot (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC in its current state. Perhaps someone with knowledge of his work could make additions that show otherwise. -- BenTels (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant enough coverage to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly doing a good job, but doing a job. Unless something more is added and sourced, the article as it stands taken with its lack of referencing doesn't indicate sufficient notability. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently do not see adequate evidence of notability AlgebraT (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Brother Ki Dulhan

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BALL. Keristrasza (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happy Evil Dude (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the project is beginning to get coverage,[19] it does not have enough to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. This one is fails WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Handcock

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

This massive article is just a massive puff piece for the individual known as "Mike Handcock". Most of it is self-referenced or passing references, and even with all of the garbage taken out, it does not prove that the subject is notable. This also may very well be an issue of WP:COI on behalf of XPressed (talk · contribs) which may or may not be an alternate account of Mdh0011 (talk · contribs) (which was made here in April but recently edited the Commons as Mdh0011 (talk · contribs)).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; even if you cleaned it up and took out all the self-referencing, there's barely any assertion of notability. There's certainly no third-party references that I can see. It mimics the appearance an actual article but is it definitely not. --Golbez (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I created this article in good faith and I have put a lot of work in it. My account XPressed (talk · contribs) is not an alternate account of Mdh0011 (talk · contribs). I tried to stick to the Wikipedia rules for the article as well as this discussion (my apologies for any mistakes I might make). I have looked up a lot of resources to ensure verifiability such as the official websites of charities, radioshows, books, etc. I hope someone can give me some pointers to keep this article from being deleted. --XPressed (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found some sources, but they don't look reliable. I couldn't find enough reliable coverage, unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per non-notable, per nom, per Golbez. Keristrasza (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO guidelines. Minima c (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional. I too can't see much in the way of independent reliable coverage. I looked up "Meet Joe Sample" (his second book) and got 16 ghits - all looking promotional. I always wonder why these motivational speakers (I've seen a few in action...) showing people how to succeed in business aren't keeping it quiet and running some vast corporation. Then again, I am rather cynical. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the Chairperson of SAGE Foundation (www.TheSageFoundation.com) and the Trustee of Thadhomal Shahani Trust which runs the Centre for Management (www.CentreforManagement.com) where I am the Chairperson. I can vouch for the authenticity of what Mike has written. He sits on the Advisory Board of SAGE Foundation and Centre for Management (which was earlier Smart Institute) I can honestly say that SAGE Foundation is what it has become today because of Mike. He has pledged to raise 5 million dollars for SAGE Foundation, and his Rock Your Life is part of the Clinton Global Initiative along with SAGE Foundation. If you google Clinton Global Initiative and SAGE Foundation you will find over 9000 entries, and Rock Your Life has been mentioned as an integral part of this village project. Mike has been nominated thrice for the Extraordinary Lives Award through XL Nation, where I had won the award this year. But I will give the credit of my win to Mike for his coaching, support and unstinting effort to make me reach my full potential. His motivational movie The Dreamcatchers was such a hit in India that fans have asked him to make Dreamcatchers Two based on the Indian Vedas. I am one of the actors in the movie and people who have seen it have told me that it is life transformational. They have loved it more than "The Secret". Mike is the Senior Director of Global Dialogue Foundation where I am the Vice Chairperson. Global Dialogue Foundation (www.globaldialoguefoundation.org) is hosting the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations Unity in Diversity programme on the 10th of October 2010. The purpose of this forum is to bring people of all communities and cultures on one platform through love, understanding and dialogue. Mike is also on the Board of FOSTrNZ which plans to bring conscious learning to the world. What I like about Mike is his humility, honesty, and sincere commitment to improving the planet in any which way possible. To fulfill this vision he has started Soul Journeys with Paul Safe, which takes people to different destinations not as mere tourists, but to take them to the next level in the evolvement of their soul. I have read some of his books and they are highly motivational. Maya Shahani 4th Oct 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.165.241 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I can vouch for the authenticity of what Mike has written." Should this be the case, and I may be off the mark of course, then it would add to my reason for supporting delete per stealth canvassing, WP:AUTO and WP:CONFLICT. Keristrasza (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) AGF per XPressed comment below. Keristrasza (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "To fulfill this vision he has started Soul Journeys with Paul Safe, which takes people to different destinations not as mere tourists, but to take them to the next level in the evolvement of their soul." Glory Hallelulya! spelling intentional Peridon (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stated facts about Mike Handcock which can be verified. If this has come across as canvassing or conflict of interest, I am sorry. My intention was neither of the two. Maya Shahani59.183.189.223 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify. Mike Handcock did not write this article himself. I wrote it. I met him last year in Mexico and was impressed by his work. We have kept in touch. I understand what you all are saying. I will make changes to the text to see if I can keep the entry from being deleted. I appreciate your comments and explanations. --XPressed (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mention in a couple of reliable sources, the rest of the refs are not reliable. It's pretty much all puffery. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu jihad

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

New article with major POV problems. Nothing but a biased rant against Hindus. Topic could be covered in other existing articles such as Terrorism in India etc. Dmol (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have launched a jihad on this article. failed to find reliable sources for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what sources exist (such as Asthana's & Nirmal's Urban Terrorism : Myths And Realities for example) explain that you're mis-using the idea of jihad right here as much as it has been mis-used by others. Try having a Dharmayuddha instead. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete. The very existence of this idea is contested. I failed to find reliable sources to support the definition of this dubious ideology. The term is used and understood by very few people, which means that it is not notable enough. TYelliot (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:ATTACK, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTNEWS -- BenTels (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. Also seems to have some major POV issues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxing. Interestingly, there is a "Hindu Jihad' community hosted by Wikia - and founded today. It was started (and at this moment solely contributed to) by someone using the same username as the creator of this article. There are ghits for the term "Hindu jihad", and there are undoubtedly Hindu extremists, but this article would probably need totally rewriting to remove the inflammatory tone and unreferenced (and possibly suspect) claims in places. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete giant biased rant about topics already covered well by pages like Saffron terror, Religious violence in India, and Hindu nationalism.Pectore^talk 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article hindu jihad is changed

Hai i created this article hindu jihad, A word hindu jihad is refer to struggle, striving or dharma(sanskrit). I accept i enter some mismatching data's in topic hindu jihad. Please see the article history, on 4th octobar, i changed total irrelavant matter in this articles.

What i was enter before that data's are related to "hindu jihad attacks", soon i will create new page for older data's. I giving some answers to users who enter a commons about this article.

Dmol - he said this topic is covered under terrorism in india and it will hurt hindus. ANS : I accept my mistake dmol, i changed total data's and now it will not hurt hindus.

Uncle G - he jovially commanded about topic. TYelliot - he said their is no reliable source about data,s. ANS: now i have given all the data's.

Peridon, Pectore - they suggested topic name should be hindu extremist not hindu jihad, now i changed the data's. sorry to say that, i enter data's of other topic like hindu jihad attacks. Once again i am saying that please see the revised hindu jihad edition. mohasik(talk) 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) - This comment was added by 94.57.172.139 (talk · contribs), not mohasik, who is a banned user.[reply]

Note: Mohasik isn't banned but blocked as sock of User:Asik5678. If the Ip says they created the article and sign as Mohasik, they rather evaded a block.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's just become am essay. A lot of religions start with 'slay the unbeliever' clauses built in. Some of them grow up out of it. In the others, most of the adherents do, but some become extremists. This is a problem with having 'holy books'. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confer 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. 94.58.82.131 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REASON FOR RESCUE: ARTICLE IRRELAVANT DATA'S CHANGED ON OCT 04
keep: its a old concept, this AFD is implied on this article for before OCT 04. After than total irrelavent data'd are removed. now it has relavent sources--94.58.82.131 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The improvements don't solve the problem. References #1 and 13 are forums. #2, #4, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are blogs/self-published sites. #6 is a video uploading site, with no mention of this topic (even if the right video is found, it would probably still not be a valid reference for copyvio and/or reliability concerns). #3, 5, 8, 9, 10 are all direct references to the Bhagavad Gita, which is a primary source at best--any application of jihad to those texts would be an act of OR. Thus, not a single one of those "references" meets the requirements of WP:RS. If you are considered continuing to work on this article (either before deletion or after in your userspace), I strongly encourage you to read the policy on reliable sources and the policy on original research. (striking my previous comment because it pertained to a 100% different version of the article). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 94.58.82.131 (talk · contribs) has been doing some light but inappropriate canvassing with respect to this AfD. Check their contributions for details. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work Some of this is personal opinions. I did some editing [20] to remove things that don't belong. Please read the edit summaries if you disagree. Google news search didn't find many references to the term, Google books showed a few more. What is the term used in India for this sort of thing? Listing the scriptures in the Hindu religion about such a thing, is fine for the article. Listing historical battles or attacks based on the concept might be appropriate as well. Dream Focus 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original article had more information that would be suitable for the article. [21] Listing various religious attacks against others, all of them with references to major news sources, is a good thing. Its what the article's subject is about. Are there any prominent religious or political leaders that encourage violence? Or is it just people acting on their own? When you have that many people over there, just having a small percentage of them randomly attacking people at times, isn't really a jihad. Is someone who is on the television or other media a lot promoting these actions? Dream Focus 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least 35 people have died during weeks of anti-Christian attacks in Orissa and nearly 50,000 have fled their homes, remaining in state-run shelters.

Dozens of churches, prayer halls and Catholic-run schools have been attacked in the state, which is ruled by a political party allied to India's Hindu nationalist party.

~~Keep the original article~~, everything there having references, and this a serious issue. I'm surprise an article for this doesn't exist somewhere already. Dream Focus 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article does exist, with a proper name for this. See below. Dream Focus 03:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ludicrous and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahmanical See. YHBT. Jack Merridew 07:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedy delete - This is like saying Islamic Nirvana or Christian Bhagwan. It's absurd and makes no sense. I am sure the creator of the article is inspired by Islamic orators like Zakir Naik who preaches that Hindu scriptures indirectly talks about Islamic teachings including Jihad and Muhammed - which is his rationale of urging all Hindus to convert. 117.97.42.226 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Saffron terror. I have restored the original article, only to have to revert it when someone changed it back again. [22] Once it was nominated for AFD, someone went and erased it and changed it to something totally different. I think everyone saying delete above was for the newer version. Someone also tried to copy and paste the article over to [23] Hindu Terrorism. I think merging the content of the article with Saffron terror might be the best option. Dream Focus 03:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invented term. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the content belongs in the proper term for Hindu religious attacks against others, which is apparently Saffron terror. Please make sure you are seeing the proper article, and not the totally different one someone placed over it. [24] Dream Focus 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

94.57.19.128 don't erase other people's comments, including one person's delete vote, when you post something. [25] Post your comments again if you want, but don't erase other people's post. Dream Focus 04:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am striking out my delete vote above, as I was, in fact, responding to a totally different article (the one that cited the Bhagavad Gita 3 or for times). I haven't yet read through this version and its sources. Perhaps we might want to consider closing this AfD as no-consensus but immediately re-opening another one since the two articles are so radically different (the previous one had literally no reliable sources, this at least appears to have some) that it will be hard to identify whether or not any of the previous rationale apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Never mind, I've now looked at about 2/3 of the sources, and in every case but one, the source is either unreliable (like online petitions, Billy Graham's site, blogs, etc.), or the paragraph does not match the citation (4 & 5), or the information is extremely outdated (the Malegaon train blasts) but the paragraph makes it sound like the debate is still ongoing (when it's not, except among fringe theorists). Ultimately, this version is no better, and possibly worse than the previous one, because it "seems" more reasonable when in fact it's using bad sources in bad ways to push an extreme POV. This article is a terrible combination of POV-pushing, OR, and unreliable sources. I'll put my short list of the first 11 sources and their problems on the talk page of the article. Saffron Terror is much better at treating this subject properly--as a fringe theory promoted by a small set of groups. There may be incidents of Hindu violence against other religions--there is no evidence for a "Hindu Jihad," and certainly little evidence for the items on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference for the Graham Staines part in the New York Times.[[26]] I believe all the major events listed will be found in many credible news sources. Going to do additional work on there now. Dream Focus 07:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the NYT article have to do with jihad? This is getting way beyond ludicrous. What exactly is the point in adding unrelated stuff to this article if you believe that everything should go in another existing article? I say speedy delete this and get it over with. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article can be changed quite easily. Is the article's name the only reason you wish to delete it? Since there seems to be consensus that jihad isn't a proper term, I'll rename the article now. Dream Focus 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The entire article is rubbish. I just wondered why you were adding unrelated material to the article when you believe that all this should go in another existing article (note the conditional). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add, only restored the original article. I erased several paragraphs and found better references for things. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article was originally in the article Hindu terrorism.[27] It was copied word for word, and pasted over here. That article now redirects to Saffron terror without most of the detail. Any act that can be verified by reliable sources, should remain, and the rest eliminated. That's what's happening now. I have renamed the article List of terrorist acts by Hindu extremists in India, since that is what the bulk of the article was about. Dream Focus 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and alleged hate campaign listed as "terrorist acts"? Now whats the definition of Terrorism!! The article is full of unsourced claims written in the style of rhetoric diatribe. To add to that; how reliable and impartial are sources like cathnews.com, christianpost.com, spcm.org, axisoflogic.com, persecution.org, [petitiononline.com] (I couldn't even insert this petition online link here because it says spam filer blocks)? 117.201.244.17 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they raped and encouraged hatred to send terror to their enemies. They are terrorist acts. And the only place cathnews is listed also has a link to the New York Times showing the same information. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH also a NPOV mess created by a POV pushing sockpuppet. POV fork of Terrorism in India--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply listing terrorist acts without a history and context from reliable sources is presenting it in a POV way. Terrorism in India is a more appropriate place to include this topic. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Two thirds of the deletes came from socks; the consensus is to keep. I was considering redirect/merge, but as there are two suggested targets, there is no clear consensus on this - however, a redirect/merger could be discussed on the talk page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb distribution

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Taleb distribution

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

Not a statistical, finance or economics term Taleb distribution is not a term used by statisticians, economists and is not a term used by market practicioners. This article should be deleted. A google search shows that this term is not commonly used term, other than in mirrors of this piece, or by a man named John Kay who is quoted in the piece. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22taleb+distribution%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=Pb-cTPn3AZuN4gbsnt2iDQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Pinguins (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) — 12Pinguins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A quick search finds at least 2 unrelated webpages and a book at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taleb-Distribution-Probability-Randomness-Economic/dp/6130335520 entitled Taleb Distribution: Probability Distribution, Probability, Fooled by Randomness, Economic Bubble, Hedge Fund, Carry, which seems at least to have an ISBN if it is nothing else. Melcombe (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That book does have more than an ISBN: it has a publisher that takes its content from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is very unfair. The gentleman requesting deletion fails to understand a very simple fact- Taleb distribution is not a statistical term but rather a moral hazard condition which is in congruence with Taleb's general robustness priniciples (which have massive implications in Finance/Economics). Numerous Practitioners refer to the "Taleb Distribution" in that context. Marking this piece for deletion shows lack of research or even awareness of Taleb's work.Please remove this article from the "considered for deletion" list. Maybe it will placate the gentleman if we can edit the page to clarify its interpretation NOT as a statistical distribution but as Moral Hazard Condition.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid definition, it doesn't need a formula to be called a distribution First, John Kay is a respected writer, and when respected writers coin a term to describe something, that term usually becomes part of the language (like Nassim Taleb and the term Black Swan).

Second, a simple Google search is not grounds for asserting that a term must be deleted. Taleb Distribution is a qualitative description of certain distributions that occur in real life, not a formula or quantitative model.

In fact, because it refers to the Fourth Quadrant (as described by Taleb), knowing the general characteristics is more important than trying to be foolishly precise with a formula.

The article must be kept as it is. --MCarr (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the prior comentator is joking by providing this link http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taleb-Distribution-Probability-Randomness-Economic/dp/6130335520 as evidence of this term being commonly used. I fully understand Talebs contribution to risk management and finance and own all of his books, but there are technical names for various distributions used by statistitians and finance professionals, as a Taleb distribution is not the term for a distribution exhibiting leptokurtosos and skewness. Taleb argues like Mandelbrot that stock returns follow a Cauchy Distribution. I fear that this piece has been written by a fan of Talebs books who does not have a good grounding in finance and statistics. Taleb has never claimed to have discovered a new distribution. This is not a commonly used term in finance, and is clearly not a commonly used term by the general public due to its low hit count on google. Providing an Amazon link to an out of print book with the improbable name of "Taleb Distribution: Probability Distribution, Probability, Fooled by Randomness, Economic Bubble, Hedge Fund, Carry [Perfect Paperback]" only adds to my case. This definition belongs on urban dictionary, not wikipedia. 12Pinguins (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be joking? The fact is that a google search, equivalent to what you had supposedly done, revealed a book or possibly pamphlet in which "Taleb Distribution" is used in the title, so someone obviously thinks it is of some importance.Melcombe (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the definition provided on the article, I do not see it defined as any distribution exhibiting leptokurtosos and skewness. A more diligent search of the Financial Times (of which I happen to be a subscriber) would return 3 columns by John Kay (quoting: "I have several times in this column described the Taleb distribution of regular small profits interspersed by large losses."), and one column by Martin Wolf also describing Taleb Distributions ("Why today's hedge fund industry may not survive", March 19 2008 02:00). Quoting Wikipedia: "Martin Wolf (born 1946) is a British journalist, widely considered to be one of the world's most influential writers on economics. He is associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times."

If Martin Wolf can write "First, many investment strategies have the characteristics of a "Taleb distribution"", economists are using the term.

What can be argued is that most finance professionals benefit themselves from such a distribution, and have no interest in discussing this fact.

When the article says that "The term is therefore increasingly used in the financial markets", it draws attention to the fact that is not yet as widely used as the term "Black Swan", which is what has drawn the attention of 12Pinguins.

This definition belongs to WIkipedia, as do "Ostrich Effect" and many other terms. It is a qualitative description, not a specific distribution, and the use of the word distribution should not be grounds for deletion.

--MCarr (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really think that this discussion should have ended when I tried to clarify the fact that "Taleb Distribution" is NOT a statistical term. So I do agree with 12Pinguins in that regard. BUT it is a term that sure is gaining prominence and use within practitioners of finance. I can point out that numerous funds and trading desks use strategies which are centered around the "Taleb Distribution". Also google hits is NOT a criteria to be listed on Wikipedia (If it were, about 57.428 % of wikipedia would be about Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton). Taleb Distribution is NOT some cool terminology created by one of Nassim's fans. 12Pinguins- If you have read all of Taleb's work, it is very dissapointing that you havent been able to grasp the context in which the term "Taleb Distribution" was coined. I would like to invite you to read some of his more literary works and perhaps you will get a better grip around the Centrality of Nassim's Robustness Principle (The Moral hazard angle of which led to the "Taleb Distribution"). I'll even give you a link to a great collection- http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Technicalpapers.pdf --Asim samiuddin —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Part of the reason it's called "Taleb distribution" is to contrast it with other mathematical distributions which have been assumed to apply to markets, when they actually don't. Sufficient citations are already in the article. More can be found on GScholar and GBooks. — HowardBGolden (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of good points made above. I have edited the article to reflect these comments, including that it is not a statistical/mathematical distribution, but rather a depiction of a common (though weak) returns profile. I still believe the article should be deleted, as the term has one to two sources, and is not in common use. Arguably an encyclopedia is not intended to be the source of invention of terms. 12Pinguins (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen the charts describing examples of the Taleb Distributions quite frequently; the two writers who used the term are influential enough to describe the term as not merely invented; the encyclopedia is merely reflecting that fact and organizing the knowledge.--MCarr (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again if 12Pinguins has already realized the points we made and even altered the article to reflect the facts, it would be best if we keep the article. The term WAS NOT invented here. Hopefully this should resolve it. --Asim samiuddin —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following this thread with amusement. I'm not sure why some Wikipedia participants are so keen to keep this article. I am both a university lecturer and a portfolio manager and I cannot say that this term is in any way in popular use. Usage by 2 economics journalists does not agree with the current entry as being "coined by practitioners". I think this piece should be deleted as it is confusing an undesirable type of investment return profile by using the word "distribution" with a statistical profile. I may hop in there and edit just this "coined by practitioners", but I am hoping that no one thinks that my attempt to correct this should be interpreted as a vote to keep the entry! FinanceLecturer (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not the prevalence of the use of the term that matters, but the prevalence of the concept as it is behind much of The Black Swan and the moral hazard. It is strange to see two people open a wikipedia account to just fight this, with FinanceLecturer just popping up. The point is that Martin Wolf and John Kay are not just prominent "journalists", Wolf was a World Bank executive and Kay was a professor.BajaaS (talk)

Delete - Not Notabile This piece does not meet wikipedia's notability standards. Its description has not been adaquately referenced. Just because two journalists have used the term does not show common usage, and does not make the term notable. For example, Snoop Dogg uses the term Shazille quite frequently, and some people may even know what he means by that, but the term does not deserve an encyclopedia entry. I note that Taleb does not appear to endorse the use of this term. Xzv65 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting Notability in Wikipedia: "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet.". So the fact that two respected economists/journalists have used it and Taleb himself didn't goes against these standards ? If what is missing is the link to the articles, that can be fixed. It is rather easy to campaign about deleting an article because one has never heard about it, it is somewhat harder to write, create and organize articles.--MCarr (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep While mostly popular on blogs, I think usage in the Financial Times in multiple articles satisfies WP:BASIC. Also found it mentioned in an article on zdnet [28] Sailsbystars (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ZDNet source seems to be based on the Wikipedia article: compare its first sentence, "The Taleb Distribution is a probability distribution where there is a high likelihood of a small gain combined with a small probability of a very large loss, which would more than outweighs any gain", with the first sentence of this version of our article from before the ZDNet article was published, "In economics and finance, a Taleb distribution is a probability distribution in which there is a high probability of a small gain, and a small probability of a very large loss, which more than outweighs the gains". In introducing the word "would" the author didn't even take care to fix the grammar by changing "outweighs" to "outweigh". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect The Black Swan (Taleb book) or Black swan theory both describe similar principles. It could be mentioned in passing as a mathematical description of said principles. Mentions in the one reference I could actually view were mostly incidental to an article on black swan events. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect The Black Swan (Taleb book) Notable topic by another name:
- Article in Finacial Times (requires free registration), in-depth explanation and how it relates to the 2006 - ???? economic disaster http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb1062b6-0532-11df-a85e-00144feabdc0.html
- Charlie Rose interview with Nassim Taleb discussing this very concept in a metaphor for economics (from minutes 1 to 3) http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9713

Mtiffany71 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Accounts 12Pinguins (talk · contribs) and FinanceLecturer (talk · contribs) are the same person. Risker (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Fooled by Randomness, which is the book mentioned in the article as the source of this idea. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

João Tiago da Silva Pereira

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansive Media

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

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

Media promotion company. Could find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Current article has no independent sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources could be found to establish notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Keristrasza (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage or very reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, also strongly non neutral tone: innovative and interactive media promotions... globe trotting, video passport to the world's greatest destinations.... a list of SOME of the media promotions recently developed.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. And is this for Expansive Media or Media Promotions? --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DaBase

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

Article consists of one sentence and a page-long computer code sample in preformatted text. No reliable sources could be found, and subject seems unnotable, and no more than a library (computing) that was created by a user and uploaded to Google Code. Many other computer-related topics with the same title were found through web searching, but it could not be established as to whether they were related to this. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Keristrasza (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeLete - no assertion of notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't state, why it is notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic, probaly promotional in intent. Rilak (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I felt like saying 'Gordon Bennett!!' but thought that might be offensive, Peridon (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Wikpedia is not for things made up one day --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow blades

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

Weird cross between blatant advertisement and a list of stunts. No encyclopedic value, I doubt it can be saved with a rewrite. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to skiboarding, since that's what I call those things, and so do several of the local skihills. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Turner Kids Network

The result was deleted as complete hoax. Only hit is to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)

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

No reliable sources provided to demonstrate notability, probably a hoax (I personally don't believe it's blatant enough to qualify for G3). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard (film score)

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

Appears completely to be original research. Narthring (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteoriginal research, unreferenced, and completely unencyclopedic. Reads like a class assignment. Edison (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's entire content is a violation of WP:FORUM. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is the OR but it's also pure cruft. --Deathawk (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Keristrasza (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Die Hard#Music. This is just a pile of original research, even the track timings conflict with the released soundtrack. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect would inappropriately give too much attention to this text. Edison (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I said redirect and not merge. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR all the way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Thomas (rugby league)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Rugby league player - Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSPORT#Rugby league, Rugby league in North America is not a professional sport does not appear to have received significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, Common name and when you include Rugby league you only get one GNews hit which does not appear to be about this person. Codf1977 (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not play in a professional sports league, and lacks references to satisfy WP:BIO. No inherent notability for semipro US rugby players. Edison (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kosbob

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Rugby league player - Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSPORT#Rugby league, Rugby league in North America is not a professional sport and even though he has played for the US team does not appear to have received significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, No Gnews hits and what Ghits there are not significant. Codf1977 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inherent notability for semi-pro US rugby players, and no refs to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as he made the US National team but fails to mention notability otherwise. Might be deleted due to being an unreferenced BLP. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malekith

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

This Warhammer Fantasy character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. The proposed deletion of this article was declined with a suggestion to consider a merge or a redirect. While such a course of action might be suitable, a merge discussion has already taken place for this article and it ended without concensus. Not wanting to merge or redirect the article without concensus, I am initiating this AfD in hopes that concensus can be reached. Neelix (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and for failure of WP:N due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable character in the Warhammer universe. What's interesting is that Marvel have a character of the same name: Malekith the Accursed. That seems to be the creation of Walter Simonson but I wonder if GW copied the name, supposing it to be part of Norse mythology, like many of of the other characters in The Mighty Thor. We certainly ought to explain this somewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1993 African Youth Championship

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

Non-notable Championship, Google search brings up no sources to suggest otherwise. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Part of a developing series of AYC articles; article only started earlier today (there's a whole category about the championships for a start). It's a stub, but worth an article. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help if the title, or at least the article text, could say what activity this championship involves. The current text makes it seem to be about who is the most youthful person in Africa. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable soccer competion. Secret ^account 00:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable international competition, being the main youth tournament in Africa, and which qualifies teams for the World Youth Cup. I have added some text to the intro to try and set context. Eldumpo (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable tournament. Giant Snowman 13:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eldumpo. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Root trainer

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

dicdef and link to commercial site Melaen (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition as there is no lexical content. And links are not a reason to delete the whole thing. I have rewritten the article to make it clearer. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is part of a liberal conspiracy, which advocates trees over uncultivated land. 80.186.217.254 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep While I am certainly not against trees, this does read like a dictionary definition of the device. AlgebraT (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)— AlgebraT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. My apologies, while reading revisions, ended on original article, not current editted version, current does not read like a dictionary definition. please excuse error AlgebraT (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google of root training pots turned up 472,000 results maybe broaden the article from this one type pot to the different types available on the market. Blackash have a chat 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article defines root trainers and then goes on to explain how they work so I wouldn't call it a dictdef. Perhaps a move to Root training is warranted because a quick google search shows that there is more than one way to train a root. But I'll leave that to the article writers. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge useful infos and redirect to Root pruning container. Article is more about root pruning and the effects than root training. Slowart (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided but inclined to merge three articles at least. In australia we have Tubestock as well- these are grown in small containers called 'tubes' which have ridges along the pot walls for guiding roots. There is a similarity of concept with both that and Root pruning container as well. I am musing on a good generic name though. I am also hapy to keep for the time being to see how the articles develop and figure out scope. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Augusta Hickey Kennedy

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

Notability is not inherited, and there are plenty of articles detailing the Kennedy ancestry D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at a minimun Merge. I'd argue that Kennedys require a broad interpretation of the "not inherited" rule as even the collateral relatives have been the subject of considerable coverage/research. JenzAccount (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Being a relative of notable persons does not make her notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page does establish at least some form of notability, the question is whether the notability asserted is relevant. Speedy delete seem completely uncalled for here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested on the article page to Patrick J. Kennedy. I am a big fan of the kennedys, and even I can't see Nana's notability. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, and notability is not "inherited retroactively" to every ancestor of a notable person. Guidelines are not universally suspended just because someone has "Kennedy" in his or her name. Edison (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable in the sense we use the term. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I,m truly sorry about this one but the nominator and those advocating for deletion are right. If the only coverage there is for something is from blogs and forums, then we can't have an article about it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Saimoe League

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

Non notable online poll almost entirely first party sourced Jac16888 ^Talk 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all first party sources, there are still 5 third party sources. What exactly do you require for a fan-based event to be notable? Or better yet, what do you require for an online poll to be notable? Tell us and we'll find you the sources. KholdStare88 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has received no coverage by reliable third-party sources. The only coverage I could find are from forums, blogs, and a fan-zine called J-zine. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is that not reliable? For a fan-based event, the experts are the fans, authors of blogs, forums, fan-zines. Who else should these experts be, anime production companies, or perhaps, J.C. Staff? I believe blogs that cover Saimoe events regularly (not just one or two matches then done) are considered a reliable third-party source for fan-based events. KholdStare88 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, form posts, zines, and other self-published sources are not acceptable unless they produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Please see WP:SOURCES for what is and is not considered a reliable source, and see WP:NOTE and WP:WEB for the requirements a topic must meet to be included as a stand-alone article in Wikipeida. —Farix (t | c)

I have researched those site before making my arguments. It does make sense for most topics that blogs and zines are not acceptable third-party sources. But for this specific case, fan-based events, it does work. As you commented, "unless they are produced by an established expert." Like I posted, in this area, the fans are the experts, so fan blogs who cover the tournament regularly should be considered experts. KholdStare88 (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ORG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. "Fans are experts?" Nope, so far as notability in Wikipedia is concerned. Edison (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking for a while now, but who exactly would be an expert on this matter? Give me an example, and I will try to relate. Also, let's not talk about "fans." We will say regular participants with significant contribution. That would make them experts. KholdStare88 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fans are experts" is equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT and is not a basis for keeping an article. We look for independent reliable sources. Did a major newspaper such as the New York Times say it? Did a wire service such as the Associated Press say it? Was it said in a respected scholarly journal which has peer reviewed articles? Is it said in a book published by a respected publisher or some university press? Some fan having a blog or posting on Wikipedia is absolutely not the same. Sorry if you cannot see that there is a difference. Edison (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Searching Anime & Manga RS finds many third-party sites used as RS (go past the first page), also in different language as its "International" title suggests, counting French, Thai, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Note that the top two voting regions of ISML are China and Taiwan, comprising of about half of votes, so one would expect more sources in Chinese. As stated by Gwern in Anime Saimoe Tournament's deletion discussion, it is proven that Saimoe rankings in general are listed in Magazines such as Newstype. Hits for "saimoe" in that post also includes International Saimoe League, not just Anime Saimoe Tournament, so sources carry over. Compared to Anime Saimoe Tournament, which continues to try to make the tournament Japanese-only, International Saimoe League is greater in scope and participation; ISML is practically the complement of Anime Saimoe Tournament: one is for within Japan and the other is for the rest of the world. Compare ISML's scope and participation (choose a round, click Go, and click on the Globe icon to view international voting) with Anime Saimoe Tournament's participation (requires Japanese Shift_JIS). It is safe to say that Saimoe participation outside Japan has largely switched to ISML after the foreign ban in AST, noticing the vote drop from AST after its peak in 2006 (4500 votes), and ISML's vote rise to its peak in 2010 (12500 votes). These two tournaments are complements of each other, and they share the same notability, when discussing "Saimoe." KholdStare88 (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out !Vote for double !voting. I've when through the results of the customized search results and didn't say anything from a reliable source. All that was there are some blogs, forum posts, and the website to the ISL itself. Subjects can only have articles if they received significant from reliable third-party sources. The Anime Saimoe Tournament, on the other hand, has received minor coverage from Anime News Network, the Malaysian newspaper The Star, and a few other reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, because someone decided to make a few posts about AST on ANN and some random reporter in Malaysia covered it, that's the difference between notable and not notable? So these "experts" who wrote a few articles know more about saimoe than those who cover AST/ISML on their personal blogs for years? From a logical point of view, a long time running blog of saimoe would be way more reliable than some random poster who decided to cover AST for fun. There's no reason to say someone with a name on a big anime website who posts minimal information is more reliable than experts who's been contributing and voting for a much longer time. 209.147.151.159 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that blogs cannot be a reliable source; it all depends on who wrote it. "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - WP:SPS. Most blogs do not meet this requirement, but there are exceptions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Hines

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simone Hines

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

This article should be deleted because it demonstrates a lack of notability. SteelIron^Talk 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the singer does not have at least two records on a major label. SteelIron^Talk 02:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO JeremyMcClean (Talk) 02:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in full agreement with nominator 203.16.61.77 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song)

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

No non-trivial coverage found. Only sources are primary or fansites, most of which I removed. The fact that multiple artists recorded it does not translate into notability if no reliable source coverage can be found; see WP:NSONGS. Searches found only Allmusic listings for the albums on which it appeared. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as it is has been "independently released as a recording by several notable artists." It only needs the relevant sources, which are found on discogs.com as well as Allmusic. Am86 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "may be notable" read as "automatically, inherently notable"? Do you really think this'll grow beyond a stub? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP:NSONGS guidelines, songs that have been "independently released as a recording by several notable artists" are "probably notable" and in this case the song is certainly notable. I will be adding additional, third-party sources. Am86 (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only "reliable sources" added by the author are Allmusic listings to albums where the song was covered. That does not fall under non-trivial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've tried to look for sources and have had trouble finding them. Co-writer Allee Willis has written some biggies. NP:Songs exists for a reason, though, I welcome thoughts on where to look for additional sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What A Do Theatre

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

Non-notable theatre with an article which is written like an advertisement. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G11. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Someone nicely put a speedy tag on the article. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Channa visual artist

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

Violates WP:BLP1E, methinks. —I-20 the highway 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the nominator could say what one event is meant by the reference to WP:BLP1E, because that policy suggests redirecting to the article about the event, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Imran Channa. I wish deletion nominators would perform such obvious moves before starting a deletion discussion so that the links provided by the AfDx templates would be accurate. Here are the search links that should have been in the nomination: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This artist's latest exhibition has attracted reviews in Pakistan's two leading English-language newspapers,[29][30] and there is international coverage of his work from Hong Kong[31] and the United Arab Emirates.[32] Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is there, per Phil Bridger. Mar4d (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the dozens of links in the 'sources' section. Mar4d (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdraws, and wakes up from wikibreak. —I-20 the highway 20:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i do agree with the Mar4d I think this article should be accepted . there are many sources attached with the article. as Imran Channa seems the progressive contemporary visual artist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmartxxx (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep if even the original nominator has changed his mind. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic bladders

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

A definition with no indication of notability or references. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is already dealt with at Spill containment. I would suggest a redirect, except that the phrase is also used in other, very different contexts, as evidenced by its occurrence in a number of other WP articles. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because pneumatic bladders have many applications in addition to spill containment. Also move the article to Pneumatic bladder, now a redlink that has incoming links. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article moved to Pneumatic bladder. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pneumatic bladder has 8 incoming links from other articles. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from delete to weak keep. The subject is possibly worthy of its own article, but if it is to be kept it needs a lot of expansion to cover as many uses of pneumatic bags as possible: some of the links are from articles on subjects (winemaking, for example) that are not mentioned in the article as it stands. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability just isn't sufficient to support an article. Figureofnine (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoko Nishimura

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

Cannot find any coverage in English or Japanese. Subject appears to fail WP:N and doesn't seem to meet any of the additional WP:ARTIST criteria.

Japanese search resulted in primary sources, databases and forum posts (Note: it appears the artist spells her name in Kana, haven't found a kanji version of the name). English search didn't turn up anything relevant. The ANN source briefly mentions the subject, but isn't primarily about the subject or her work. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if she technically meets #3 under WP:Author, but I would think creating a work that has been adapted into a TV series (and a relatively long one, at 70+ episodes and still airing) would be of equivalent notability to what it listed there. Certainly, creating a work that was adapted into a TV series seems more notable to me than creating a work that got a couple reviews in publications. Calathan (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company that did the animated adaptation is also the publisher of the manga, so I'm not sure it would meet the "independent" part of that optional criteria. And even if we get a consensus that does meet the criterion, there really isn't much to write about here without sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person is clearly notable. Forget about trying to interpret the vagueness of the suggested guidelines, and think for yourself. A writer's notability is determined by their work. The work is notable, so are they. This does not violate the rule about notability is not inherited, since that only contains to people who are related to someone famous, but have never done anything themselves. Dream Focus 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, on Wikipedia a writer's notability is determined by reliable third-party coverage. It has nothing to do with what someone subjectively feels is notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability or sufficient sourcing to justify a self-standing biographical article. No indication here that the work this person is supposed to have penned is even notable either. --DAJF (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator's search in 2 languages clearly shows failure to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The manga may or may not be notable. Also, there is hardly any information on the page, and no notability claim. Shashwat986 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juban's Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of importance, essentially no content, only source is from the website of the restaurant itself. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep if it can be proven that it was rated one of the "Best New Restaurants in America" by Esquire Magazine.. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an unreliable source that stated the restaurant won the Esquire Restaurant of the Year award in 1983, and I found a possible hit from "The Advocate", the local newspaper, on a Google News Archive search. The article's free summary (the full article was pay-to-view) seemed to indicate that the restaurant won the award in 1984. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AFD nomination. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The whole thing seems very spammy to me, as if written by the staff. One thing that seems to trip up people on this one is that it's mentioned as one of Esquires "Best New Restaurants" in 1984, but I would advise people to ignoe that after all how many of esquires other "Best New Restaurants" for any year have a wikipedia article?--Deathawk (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little significant coverage, also sounds a bit of self promotion. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this claim can not be verified, I would agree with delete. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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