Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 8

< 7 July	9 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable. Manning (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Battiloro

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

Largely promotional puff piece that doesn't include any serious claims to fame. No reliable sources found. ninety:one 23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this is being said. I have verified the information on Discogs, IMDB and the web. I think the "puff" should be taken out and I will edit this piece to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infodataguru (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what this looked like before others have edited it but it looks fine now. Everything checks out and is accurate without to much puff. I think it should be here. He obviously has contributed much to the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologyst101 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in depth coverage by reliable sources. Supplied IMDb and Discogs links are trivial database entries that only prove that the article is not a complete hoax. The links provide zero support for any of the biographical details. A search for reliable sources gets only false positives. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do Not Delete" After review of over 50 other Biography's I found them to be NO different than this. I think this is a personal issue with someone. I cannot find one reason why IMDB, Discogs etc are now being discounted. Musicologyst101 07:48, July 10 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologyst101 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. I digged through two pages each of Yahoo and Google searches, and I didn't find any solid mentions just small mentions on websites. Although, the article cites IMDb and Discogs the article can't sustain itself entirely on those two sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FORUS Athletics

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

Disputed PROD over whether this meets WP:CORP. There is coverage by one reliable source. However, the guideline requires coverage by multiple, third-party reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of being a commercial. If we redirected the article to the company website it wouldn't be any more promotional sounding. No evidence of signifcant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't see any notable coverage results on both Google and Yahoo. If the article can supplied with third party mentions, then the article has potential. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister's reasoning. The article can be re-written once more notable sources surface, but so far 90% of it is "sourced" by the company's own webpage, and it is mostly non-encyclopedic material. In its current state there is little information salvageable to create an unbiased article, and that information alone will not meet notability criteria. Rymatz (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - no clear consensus, default outcome. Manning (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PyChess

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

Article tagged back in 2009 with notability concerns, and has no improvement since then. Does not cite a single reliable secondary source. Unless someone can find some significant coverage soon, I propose deletion per our core WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot of new stuff to this article recently. It now cites 9 different sources. 7 of them independent. I can add more improvement to the textual quality in the coming days. --Thomasda (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pychess.org, gnomedesktop.org code.google.com and live.gnome are primary sources. bobthegnome.blogspot, inf.sgsp.edu.pl and ohloh.net are not reliable publications. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. The kind of thing I'd be looking for is a full review or feature in a chess or linux publication. Chess magazine reviews sometimes pop up on Google Books, but in this case I couldn't track anything down. Marasmusine (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is mentioned in a Chess magazine. It is still more in the Hobby league than the professional. The Wikipedia link was the best source I could find for the The Trophees du Libre award, but I thought winning a 3.000 euro award was worth mentioning. Regarding reviews, I know about

Would any of those be good enough as reliable secondary sources? --Thomasda (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, these links don't strike me as being reliable sources. The reason I say this is that they are either wikis, or self-published sites. We do have a caveat with such sites, in that if the author can be shown to be an "established expert" (i.e. someone with a solid publication history) then their work can potentially be usable. I'll try to look into it. Marasmusine (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Only Howtogeek seams to be non personal, non wiki. Thomasda (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine, I think a software wins an award for the Trophées du Logiciel Libre is relevant enough. Videos about event [1] and Interview of Thomas Dybdahl, leader of "Pychess" software during the Trophées du Libre 2009 [2]. Cheers, LeonardoG (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable third-party sources have reported on this event, that will convince me. The award itself needs to be notable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. There seams to be mostly French and German reports on the event. However some of them are from fairly major publications like Linux Magazin and Pro Linux:

Thomasda (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo, this is not about who "deserves" what. It is simply about having correct sources for an article. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is thin on the ground, but between this review and this article documenting its "Trophées du Libre Soissons" win, I'm going to say we should hang onto it. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So here comes grumpy old Marasmusine again. Just to note that the 01net review is actually a publisher's description. At the moment I'm trying to decide on the reliability (by our standards: it's self published) of pro-linux.de. Linux-magazine.de does look usable, though. We'll see what others think. Marasmusine (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
01net: oh, geez, okay. Good catch. I guess I haven't learned to identify marcomm if it's in French. What do you think of this source? Re "grumpy old Maramusine": hey, I have never once accused you of Literally Deleting MUD History From The Entire Internet ZOMG. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is/was a concern but based on the sources found above, it seems the article will be improving enough to be kept.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li - Iyengar New Region Guarding Algorithm and its Applicaitons on Autonomous Pipeline Inspection

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

Looks like a proposed algorithm for pipeline inspection. Just two hits on internet, both from the involved university. Not a widely known proposal, so not notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic notability due to a lack of WP:RS discussing the proposal. At best it might be worth a mention at the article on the proposal's creator. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the issue of IEEE Transactions on Robotics in which the article describing this is to appear is not even out yet, so of course no evidence of notability can be found. --Lambiam 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps it merits a mention on a related page, but the algorithm isn't yet notable per our guidelines yet. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable proposal. As others have said, important highlights can be mentioned on a related page.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Ciancio

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

Not a notable person. The only sources on page are Wikipedia and YouTube. Google search shows no significant results. I really think this should be speedy deleted. JDDJS (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides, it was created by Damianciancio, so there might be a conflict of interest Cambalachero (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources needed to show notability. Gnews has never heard of this guy; Gbooks has copies of this article. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only references are WP and YouTube. Unable to locate verifiable sources to establish notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — makes his animation some of the best on the market.... He has worked passionately to produce and succeed ...He is a top 2D animation director. Spam, non-notable and COI. I actually speeedied this bit of self-promotion, but was asked to reinstate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. When I searched both Google and Yahoo, all I found were gaming websites and brief mentions of his name. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime cage rage

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources on internet. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not even tell us what it is about, and even the abreviation seems to be wrong.Borock (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly incoherent Stuff I Made Up One Day from an apparent single-purpose account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a fun time, but the only ghits I see are Wikipedia mirrors. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was obvious snow delete. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quran miracle

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

Hard to figure exactly how to categorize this as anything else than original research. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original, unreferenced numerology research. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lol original research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook example of original research. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, pure original research is it. LadyofShalott 01:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of above. The sources only confirm this is original research. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete as the information is not original research but an english version of Abdullah Jalghoom's work. There are external links and reference to his book in the article. humtv (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2011 (GMT)

Comment No evidence that this is a reliable source. Above comment is user's only contribution. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This research has already been done in Arabic .The wikipedia article is just an english translation of a 5 to 10 years old work in Arabic. Quran Information (talk) ) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Has the research been published in or been the subject of multiple reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE? 99.170.154.183 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has been published, the url is http://www.alargam.com/sorts/jalghoom/index.htm and http://www.alargam.com/sorts/jalghoom/8/asrar/index.htm where the whole book is available online in Arabic Quran Information (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (GMT)

When I go to that website and use Google Translate, it appears to be Abdullah Jalghoom's own website. That is not an independent reliable source. Websites controlled by the person who wrote the book and/or developed the concept do not establish notability on Wikipedia. We need references to discussion of this topic in independent reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON take your pick. Manning (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World cup 2026

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

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Event over ten years in the future, information available is vague speculation at best. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL violation. Giant Snowman 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing known about the tournament pure speculation and against WP:CRYSTAL. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already stated Adam4267 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatent WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing of substance to write about. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All content of this article is speculative. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It will be held in about 14 or 15 years time, and the hosts will not be announced until 4 to 8 years from now! Velociraptor888 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Institute of Medical Sciences

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

It's an 8 year-old trade school that grants two-year paramedic diplomas. "Keep" arguments in previous AfD consisted of WP:ITEXISTS. Article still has no reliable secondary sources - in fact, no sources at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep err..what's the main argument here? There's the official website which proves that the institution does indeed exist. If it was a hoax, that would've been different. Mar4d (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same "argument" you made last time. As I pointed out in my nomination above, WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD. The fact that something merely exists is not reason enough for it to have a Wikipedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In response to the claim above, it's worth remembering that "a website exists" is not the same thing as "the school exists". Anybody can create a website. Schools (especially limited trade schools like this) are normally deleted if we cannot find an independent source that proves the school to really exist. All notability guidelines require the existence of at least one source that is not published by the subject of the article, and that source must say something more than merely the name of the subject. Also, it'd be impossible to comply with the content policies requirements about basing all articles primarily on third-party sources, if zero such sources actually exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it exists, it's really a business so I don't look at it as a school. As such, the lack of reliable third party sources is a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article as it stands lacks in-depth independent coverage required by WP:CORP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Gornstein

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

Being assistant vice president of communications for a college does not confer notability. J04n(talk page) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The administrative post he held at Brandeis is significantly below of what would be required to satisfy WP:PROF#C6. Only three fairly brief mentions in local newsmedia, per GoogleNews search[3], and nothing else to indicate passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't get any good hits on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only seeing trivial mentions in reliable sources. I'm surprised this article lasted 4+ years. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thompson (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG, no indication the subject can satisfy any relevant SNG. Neither the claimed "Gay Producers Association Award" nor the organization which briefly gave it out is notable, and therefore cannot pass the "well-known/significant" standard for contributing to notability. The name is common, but there appear to be no relevant GNews hits and only one GBooks hit, a brief mention in an individual's memoir that is insufficient to establish notability. No significant reliable sourcing, no signficant biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-pornographic actor sourced only to IMDB with a hokey pokey "award" for an obscure movie would be snow-deleted in about half a day. There is absolutely nothing here to indicate GNG is met by this subject. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic abstraction

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

Virtually identical to Formal abstraction which is up for deletion as original research. This has references as does the other article (added by the same editor) by WP:OR as does possibly WP:SYNTH at this point. Anything useful in this or Formal abstraction can be merged eslewhere. freshacconci talktalk 20:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Thematic abstraction has a definition I think it should be added to the Abstract art article. But after reading the Thematic abstraction article, I still don't know what that definition is. I find any explanation given thus far incomprehensible to me at least. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - there is plenty of scholarly research on the topic, and there are many books discussing the topic. Find an expert and rescue it. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you actually read those ghits before posting your comment? None of them have anything to do with visual art, so no, there do not appear to be any books discussing this topic. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is contending that "Thematic abstraction" is a term that relates to the visual arts. All of the sources given are offline. None of the citations are providing the term used in a sentence. And worst of all no attempt is made to define the term. What is it? Are we going to have an article that hints that a term exists—but nothing beyond that? We have to know what "Thematic abstraction" is. And we have to know what it is in the visual arts. We are talking about art. Geometric abstraction has significance. Lyrical abstraction has significance. That doesn't mean these terms have to be defined conclusively. But we should have a ballpark definition of what the term refers to. Can anybody offer a clue in plain English as to what this term might designate in the visual arts? I would rather not see the article deleted if the term has some meaning. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I mention below google and google scholar hits are listing uses of "thematic abstraction" as a description not a genre as indicated in the article. There's a big difference. And yes, I did check google and my university library database to see if there was any use of this term the way it is being used in this artcle before I nominated it for deletion. freshacconci talktalk 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, seems to be something else. Hit the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Major newspapers refer to this type of artwork as "thematic abstraction". So its a real genre and should thus be covered. Most of those articles are hidden behind paywalls. But read the summaries that appear. [4] Dream Focus 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, no. Those google hits are mainly using "thematic abstraction" in a descriptive way, they are not referring to a supposed genre of abstraction. The way the term is being used in this article is a neologism and is unsupported. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. C'mon. Did you actually read any of those ghits? The second one states "Bush, the practical candidate with the common touch, is running a campaign of thematic abstraction". Seriously? freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every thing that appeared was relevant. Add in the word "art" to the search if you want to eliminate some bad results. [5] Some news sources do refer to this is a type of artwork though. Dream Focus 22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best bets in DC Pay-Per-View - The Sun - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 24, 1981 what is long thought to be the embodiment of the first formal and thematic abstraction in modern art will be dis played from Sunday through August 2.

Thus my mistake. formal abstraction and thematic abstraction are just descriptions of the modern art, not actual types.

When I Google for "thematic abstraction" AND "textbook" to see if its taught in art classes or not I find some results. [6] But these are all showing it as a concept, part of the class, not a genre. Dream Focus 22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being based upon reliable sources. Before the tedium of liberal arts prose set in, I did look over the (non Bush related) articles that were provided. None of them do anything more than use these two words together, no exposition on what it might mean (beyond it's simple dictionary compound meaning, intelligible to anyone who knows what both words are), nothing upon which to build an article. This style of argumentation is difficult to approach with good faith, and is deeply detrimental to the quality of these discussions. It takes far longer to refute these claims, however hollow they may be, than it does to make a google search and link it. For example, "pineapple hat" gets 17 hits, almost as many as thematic abstraction. But does it mean anything?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article claims the topic to be a subset of abstract art, but I cannot find any sources that discuss 'thematic abstraction' in such a context. There is therefore a strong suspicion that the entire topic is WP:OR. Can anybody confirm that the topic, as defined by the article (as opposed to general usage of the term), actually exists in reliable sources? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lane (soccer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. There is no evidence that he played at a fully-professional level of football. – Michael (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete--he was signed to a contract with a professional team in Belgium, but I can't find any sources that claim he actually appeared in a game for them--unless somebody can show that actually appeared in a game, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Meelar (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I saw a few stories on him being on the bench for games in Belgium, but none on him actually playing. Also no indication of him playing for Blackburn Rovers, which is claimed in the infobox. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. It appears he spent a whole season as a backup goalkeeper for the Belgium team, which is just barely not meeting our standards. The time in Blackckburn appears to be false. It's not a reliable source but I found info on this discussion thread at Bigsoccer.com.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The appearances for Blackburn Rovers are complete fabrication. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete never played in a competitive first team match, only sports coverage of general tabloid nature. Blackburn mentions removed, he only ever attended a US based goalkeeping academy owned by Friedel who had a collaboration deal with Blackburn rovers as feeder to give his grads a pathway.--ClubOranje^T 23:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, nor for the US national team, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and since there is only trivial coverage, he fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I agree with Hoary that the article must be radically revised to meet WP:NPOV. However there are sufficient sources to meet the GNG and consensus below points to keep. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kike San Martín

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

Non notable photographer Diego Grez (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Photographers are hardly ever notable, but in this case, he certainly supports the notability claim. Photos for music CD artworks, a role in talk shows, judge of the latin grammy awards. On the other hand, it has a promotional tone here and there, but that may be fixed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Click footnotes 1, 2, and 3 showing in the article. This never should have been brought to AfD. San Martîn is the subject of multiple, independent, substantial pieces of published coverage. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Carrite. While I'm not 100% sure that the FF Media source isn't largely push-PR, the other two articles look reputable/solid enough, which reaches (in my estimation) WP:GNG by a nose. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references seem notable to me. Wxidea (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Promotional flatus. If it's kept, it needs to be radically revised. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinogen (musician)

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

Last AFD doesn't have me convinced. Most sources dug up were trivial. And either way, no one added them to the article anyway. I fail to see how being in two "notable" bands warrants standalone notability — none of the sources I've found are about HIM proper, just works he's associated with. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--WP:MUSIC #6--"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." He clearly meets that, as well as #1 (the sources User:Michig found are not all trivial by any means) and #5 (he's released more than one album on a noted indie record label). If the sources weren't added to the article in the last round, well, nobody's stopping you. AfD is not cleanup, and this clearly meets the music notability standards. Meelar (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how being in two bands makes you independently notable. That criterion of WP:BAND is inherently flawed and in direct violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. And I still don't think any of the sources are worth adding — they're all trivial tangential mentions. Show me one that's about HIM PROPER — JUST THE MAN HIMSELF, not one of his bands, and I'll retract. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Even if you disagree with criterion number 6 (and a random AfD entry isn't really the place to have that discussion), it's still clear that he's released multiple albums on notable indie record labels, clearly fulfilling #5. Seriously--how is Wikipedia improved by removing this article? Meelar (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sputnik source does not adequately substantiate the claim: ...is considered one of the most influential albums in the genre, and is only the POV of that web site. Significant reliable sources must be provided in order for this article to be kept. The previous AfD, understandably, seems to have been procedurally closed as 'kept' due to the overwhelming number of 'keep' votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was virtually a snow keep last time, with lots of coverage identified, so is this really likely to go anywhere? Try searching for "Simon Posford" (the article is about him) in Google News, e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].--Michig (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO #6. (Maybe the guideline should be amended in the future, but I tend to !vote "as is" for guidelines) I removed much of the unsourced information and added in some of the sources provided by Michig. The Boulder Weekly piece has a bit of coverage of him as a person. Also, I'd suggest moving this to his real name, that seems to be used by most of the sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious call per WP:MUSICBIO #6 (he's in Shpongle and Younger Brother). Also, the sources from Allmusic and Boulder Weekly (see article) are a slam dunk for WP:N itself. This isn't even a close call; meritless AfD. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 as stated above. Also #2, because the album Twisted reached 27 in the French album chart. Also #7, because the Hallucinogen was prominent in founding the psy-trance genre. APB-CMX (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sanchez

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Not notable at present. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I'm not sure how this fails WP:NFOOTBALL. That page explicitly says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable", and as the article details, he has appeared in several games for FC Dallas, a professional team that's been around since the founding of Major League Soccer. Meelar (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Delete--yikes. Sorry for missing that. You're completely right. Once he starts a game he deserves an article Meelar (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "as the article details, he has appeared in several games for FC Dallas" - sorry; where pl? TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The two external links, that detail games played, are actually about Ruben Luna not Richard Sanchez. I respectfully suggest that this is a rather subtle but important discrepancy. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. How does someone get a winners medal without even playing in one match? That's a new one to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And before he'd even signed a contract too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant notability guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur; fails any relevant notability guidelines at the present. Digirami (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the users above. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kei (integer)

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

Non-notable number. Is there a reason why an article on this number exists, but none of the other numbers at Chinese numerals#Large numbers, Japanese numerals#Large numbers and Korean numerals#Numerals (億, 兆, 京, 垓, 秭, 穰, 溝, 澗, 正, 載)? Do we need an article on every single Chinese/Japanese/Korean number, all the way from 一，二，三，四，五 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) all the way to 载 (10⁸⁰)? And is there any reason why the Japanese reading of the Chinese character 京 is used as the article title, when the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese readings are just as valid and significant? Wikipedia is WP:NOT Wiktionary (which already has a page at wikt:京), nor an indiscriminate source of information. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already mentioned in Chinese numerals, Japanese numerals and Korean numerals. Does not merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gandalf61; nothing to merge. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gandalf61. I note that large powers of ten do not generally have their own article, and (in spite of the article title) this article is about the numeral, not the integer. As such, the material should be discussed in articles on number systems (and it already is). -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant numeral system articles. This seems notable as a fact about some east Asian languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop tv

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

This does not seem to be a notable television program, it is only broadcast on non-profit community television stations (see Channel 31 (Australia)) and there is little coverage of it in the news or anywhere. Speedy was declined (although I still think it qualifies), article creator removed PROD with no reasoning. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the speedy, but followed it up with a proposed deletion (which the author then declined as already said). My proposed deletion rationale was pretty much what Mike put above as the reason for the nomination, so I don't have much to add to it. I'll add that I really did look for coverage of this program, I also visited the show's web site to see what it was about, and then to try to see if they had posted any press info or reviews, but I couldn't find anything. I don't see that we really have anything to build an article about. -- Atama頭 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody proves notability, and thanks to User:Atama for stressing the due diligence he/she did before putting this here. Kudos! Meelar (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural speedy close - incorrect venue. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Regardless, the rationale was that a separate article is needed. If so, create one or see WP:AFC; until it's done the redirect seems reasonable to me. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bend Gambusia

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

This was a re-direct to its own base page. It needs is own article. Dinkytown talk 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misti Traya

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

This actress has not become notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:ENT through recurring roles in 3 TV series and multiple other credits, plus GNews coverage that includes being singled out for her performance in a review in the Washington Post. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As HW pointed out, it looks like she meets WP:ENT, I added a few sources to the article and trimmed back some unsourced stuff. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Historians

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

Non-notable group/organization. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Google itself produces no mention of an organization of this name or "AHI", a Google News search produces no hits, and a Google News Archive search produces 9 hits but none are about this organization. The author has provided some references but none actually name the group, only things that people in the group have done. Besides the references, I see no claim of notability. Also, I believe there's a good chance much of the article is a copy/paste job. Author has been pasting large portions of content into other pages (~20k bytes on the linked page). OlYeller^Talktome 14:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am good with the Association of Indian Labour Historians and the International Association of Historians of Asia and even the Indiana Association of Historians, but this seems to be a non-notable new organization. That the article is a stylistic train-wreck shouldn't come into consideration, but it certainly doesn't help the cause... Carrite (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything on GNews or Gbooks. We can always re-create if reliable source coverage turns up later. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any mentions of this particular organization in News, etc. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is an issue. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. v/r - T P 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

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

Contested prod. There are no details in the article to assert notability, and most of the list is unnecessary even to understand or support the episode articles--minor background or one-shot equivalent characters do not need to be covered here. I was unable to find much from non-companion or fan-oriented sources to prove that the minor characters are important enough for their own separate coverage. Right now it's an extension of mere listing of plot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very well-done article, but it belongs on a fan site not an encyclopedia for the general public. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Battlestar Galactica characters which, by definition, should cover all the same stuff and more besides. Warden (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename to List of characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) per my deprodding rationale, and the rationale I provided on the talk page Talk:List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) for the requested move. The other article Colonel Warden points out is not about the 2004 TV series. There is no list of characters for the 2004 TV series. This article should be expanded to include characters that have their own articles, so become a standard list of characters. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to have a list of characters for popular TV series, and this was a popular TV series. There is no such article at the moment, a slight expansion of this list would fill that void. Standard editorial edits can trim the less notable characters off this list as well. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Battlestar Galactica characters.--Philly boy92 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Col. Warden, though really--there's a room for a separate character list for each notable television series Combining the character lists through the iterations of the show should be a matter of convenience, since the character names overlap to some extent, rather than a mandate. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is very little overlap between the various series. Aside from the main characters, none of the characters overlap between the 1978 and the 2003-2009 TV shows; And only three characters overlap between the 1978 and 1980 TV shows. Only one character overlaps between Caprica and the 2003-2009 TV show. And the character details between the 2003-2009 and 1978 shows are completely different, so there's no overlap in actual content, only character names. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In most of the TV series we don't include all one-off characters because Wikipedia is not a TV guide. These descriptions are not supported by any references and it's unlikely there will be any. No out-of-universe significance is there neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters after some selective trimming, since this list is overtly detailed on what are supposed to be minor characters. I agree that each show could warrant having its own list of characters, so a rename to List of characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) would be fine, provided that the other lists are updated accordingly - frankie (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). The topic of characters in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) is notable itself, indeed as already established, several characters are notable on their own, there are numerous sources in the individual characters article to back their notability, and to a large extent the notability of this topic follows; it becomes clear that it is notable once you see that several independent RS consider the characters as a whole, the problems they all face, and the secondary and background characters, such as in Finding Battlestar Galactica: An Unauthorized Guide by Lynnette R. Porter, David Lavery, Hillary Robson; and Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel by Roz Kaveney and Jennifer Stoy. Coverage of the characters in a notable work of fiction is a legitimate encyclopedic interest, and List of Battlestar Galactica characters is not suitable because it lists articles of other BSG series. It is certainly uncertain that the topic of minor characters is notable, so to address this issue this article should be renamed as above and appropriately edited so as to reflect the change of subject. Cenarium (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that this is more than just plot, as evidenced by the commentaries for example in Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel which discuss how the characters are affected by the dramatic events, sexuality, questions regarding survival, etc. Cenarium (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a compromise. Not enough coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability of these minor characters, which are not notable almost by definition. But if it will help to produce a consensus, I would accept a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters This is an unnecessary split that does not meet the general notability guideline by itself and it only provides primary sources and a fansite to back up the content. Without independent reliable sources, there is no presumption that the list meets the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. As the content of the article consists of a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reception or significance in the real-world for the fictional characters in reliable secondary sources, it is unsuitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since it falls into what Wikipedia is not. Also, Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details to list minor fictional characters from a notable TV series. I do not believe that a merge is warranted since most of the content is unreferenced and minor characters can be perfectly addressed with plot summaries, which most episodes of the series have, but, for the sake of generating a consensus, I think a merge of the referenced content is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename WP:AVOIDSPLIT says "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This is a conditional sentence, and therefore does not apply in this case. Both the 2004 series and the 1978 one are notable enough to justify a list of characters for each one. If we accept that the 2004 series should have a list of characters somewhere, then removing the excessive characters given here can just be done, and the main characters of the series summarised in this article; both can stand alone, without relying on the other series, to have a notable list of the characters. Courcelles 05:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, cannot be deleted per policy as with the consenus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) locations: per Wikipedia:DEL#Merging: Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. That's exactly what this list is, as there have been articles merged into it or other pages in the past such as Scar into Talk:Cylon Raider, and the list also contains links to articles which have been deemed notable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive seen many articles like this one for various shows. If you delete this you must delete them also. So its easier to keep it, Plus its a notable TV show on primetime television. Goldblooded (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or smerge to the omnibus list of BSG characters. When and where a character appears mainly in a single episode and we have an episode article we could consider merging that content to the episode article. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Tric

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

Many mistakes corrected - Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity - notability not satisfied Genium (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i re-checked sources , including books and scholar http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Eduard+Tric%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Eduard+Tric%22 and wikipedia policies , and found it compliant . Deleting it after so much discussion and work will discourage the volunteer that i am to further contribute , this was my first full note. comment added by Jurnalist (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One uncitable hit on Google Books and two uncitable hits on Google Scholar do not provide evidence of notability. You need to say precisely why you think the subject meets the relevant policies (WP:PROF and WP:BIO), particularly as I've shown, exhaustively, why the article at present fails to meet those. And finally, "keep this article or I'll leave Wikipedia" also has no bearing on the subject's notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As French, I can say that trying to link Mister Tric to the French HADOPI law or to the Mécénat Global project is really irrelevant (cf here and here - And he was not involved in the the book that the free software community wrote together about Hadopi, and his opinion, as the mine, is not a reference in France on this point). Next, what about EuropePKI? It seems this is a vaporware and this seems an instance of how to spend public money for nothing. Software is intended to be used, and this is not the case here, at least to my knowledge. Anyway, there isn't here the necessary notability needed to justify an article. According to Loïc Dachary, M. Tric never wrote any free software (PDF), but but the first version of this article gave the feeling that Tric was a free software developer. I can't understand this need to lie in the aim to have his name on WP. Finally, I cannot read any Romanian, so I found an information that Ion Vaciu is the president of the Internet Society Romania... Sorry for my bad english :) - (Genium (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

M. Tric seemed to be just a student, not a co-worker: "Christian Fluhr"+"Eduard Tric" (Genium (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NPOV, no RS, clear examples of PUFF and probable COI - frankly it might be quicker to list the guidelines this article doesn't fail. Yunshui (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read a bit of French, so will take a look. Hard to tell at first glance, since the article is clearly a cut-n-paste of the French one (which was also nominated for deletion on July 7). W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep alas I cannot read any Romanian, but after reworking many of the sources I did find a few that seem to qualify. I rewrote the article in English and should be a bit less promotional, but it still needs work. W Nowicki (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm afraid I don't see sources that would give him a WP:PROF or WP:BIO pass.
- This, this, this, this, this (a newsgroup post, I might add), this and this mention Tric not at all.
- This is an attendee list for a conference, hardly evidence of notability.
- This spends a few lines saying what he said at a conference: again, delivering remarks at a conference is not evidence of academic notability.
- This makes passing mention of him, to the effect that he opened an ISOC chapter. It's not an independent source, being an ISOC newsletter, and it seems doubtful that "ISOC chapter founder" adds any notability. Certainly, no mention of the fact is made in third-party sources.
- This is also from ISOC, mentioning a project he headed. Interesting, but receiving a grant and undertaking a project is thoroughly routine.
- This is a slide show of a presentation he gave at a conference. I fail to see how that either validates a claim of notability or is usable in the article.
- This, for one, is a baccalaureate thesis, and thus unusable (we only accept doctoral theses as reliable sources). For another, it makes the barest passing mention of him.
- This mentions his involvement in an EU-funded project. The problem is, it's on the funder's website, and so not independent. It doesn't advance a claim to notability.
- This and this apparently confirm that he attended yet another conference. I fail to see the contextual relevance.
- There are also two YouTube videos. For one, this encyclopedia relies on published written works. For another, WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to them. And for another, they show him speaking at a conference, again not evidence of notability.
- Note too the wretched Google Scholar results.
Tric has an active career in his field, but that's different from having a notable one, which is a rather higher standard. If we keep, it should specifically be shown which sources validate a claim of notability under WP:PROF. That has not happened. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - more links have been added, but no evidence of notability.
- This (a PowerPoint slide!), this, this, this and this (a press release!) make no mention of Tric.
- This is the home page of his consulting firm, and gives his biography; can we say "non-independent source"?
- This is a press release briefly quoting Tric about one of his ventures; I'm afraid this too isn't relevant in terms of encyclopedic coverage.
Notability, as manifested in "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", remains conspicuously absent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His research output is clearly below the bar for WP:PROF so I think we need to ask instead whether he passes the bar of WP:GNG for his software engineering activities. But although the article documents a lot of different things he's done, I can't find good third-party sources (such as newspaper and magazine articles, awards, keynote speeches, etc) that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pandurangapuram

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

Article has no third-party references whatsoever, piles of unsourced content and a completely miscellaneous image (seemingly from the film Avatar^[sarcasm]) with no clear link to the topic. More concerningly, the village is subject to absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources that I'm able to find; most mentions of it that I can find seem to be directory listings rather than detailed discussion. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 11:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Treasury Tag, you know better than this. It's a verifiable geographical ___location. Feel free to remove the unsourced content and the miscellaneous image using the normal editing process, but articles about villages are kept.—S Marshall T/C 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me which notability guideline applies to villages? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 15:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate specific notability guidelines and I always rely on the GNG. But that's sufficient in this case because per this discussion, a map is a secondary source. The reason I say "you know better than this" is because to my certain knowledge, you've participated in AfDs where this has been discussed before.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a village to me. [14]. Per long standing convention, population centers are notable regardless of size.--Oakshade (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As a real village it is inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the speedy keep criteria do you think applies here? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 07:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - villages are considered to have inherent notability (see WP:NPLACE. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogata no Saburo Keroyoshi

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

Entirely non-notable figure. I've not been able to find any significant coverage (example) – and on top of that, the style is abysmal. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 11:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with massive cleanup and new title. There are plenty of sources for this; search "Ogata no Saburo Koreyoshi", which is what the chap's name actually was... Notable historical character as per criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~ Keep (see below), I proposed that the article be deleted ~~a few days ago~~ yesterday (rationale here), which was contested. Basically, in addition to lacking any sources, the article's style is unsuitable to the extent that it would require a complete rewrite to be fit for inclusion. If someone commits to improving the article, then I think it could be kept, but in its current state it simply shouldn't be included. wctaiwan (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The point of this encyclopedia being a wiki is that articles can be improved by editing, rather than deleted and rewritten. This can easily be reduced to a stub and rebuilt from there if the style is so bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially rewritten, so I'm switching sides. And yes, any article can be fixed, but in the state it was in when nominated for deletion, it was completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. The way I see it, "articles can be improved" is not a good reason to keep policy-violating articles on Wikipedia. wctaiwan (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for the name that Yunshui provided turns up a few Google Books hits about someone who seems pretty notable, but I can't access more than a couple sentences of the books. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Keep. I added a Japanese interwiki. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wikified the article a little bit. But I didn't understand much of it. :) . I hope it helps. Moscowconnection (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm at a complete loss to understand how someone who has been written about more than 800 years after he lived can be characterised as "entirely non-notable", unless it is that the nominator took offence that I contested one of his WP:PROD tags and so decided to nominate other articles where I had contested deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging bad faith is all very well but I clearly stated my basis for having not found any significant coverage of this person. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine, but please don't suggest that I failed to explain myself. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pots and kettles spring to mind when you invoke WP:NPA. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mine they don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've continued the work started by Moscowconnection, hopefully this makes the article a bit more readable. Still in serious need of refs; I will have a dig around later today and see what I can turn up. Yunshui (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now. But there can be many factual mistakes in what the person who created the article wrote. For example, I thought it should read "his armies played the key role in securing Minamoto no Yoritomo's control of Japan by expelling the Taira from Kyūshū", not "Minamoto no Yorimitsu's", so I finally decided to correct it. Japanese Wiki mentions Yoritomo too. And the whole Snake God citation should be verified. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a cite for the snake-god thing, though not for the actual text quoted - I think this comes from a version of the Tale of the Heike, but tantalisingly, I can't find it in my copy ('s a big damn book, though...). Yunshui (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, it's in chapter 8 of the McCullough version. Text differs, and it's a bit long to quote without copyvio, though. I'll rewrite something and replace what's there. Yunshui (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) PS. Good catch on the Yorimitsu/Yoritomo mix-up![reply]

I rephrased the snake god story a bit. Now there's only one thing I don't understand: the words "Shinto legend". Is this a collective term for Shinto legends in general? I'll change it to "the Shinto legends" then. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now sourced, he appears to be a notable historical figure. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile agency

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

An unnotable businees concept. Unreferenced for forever. Wouldn't be totally opposed to a merge/redirect to Advertising agency. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coatrack advertisement for a fairly new type of agency that has risen due to the popularity of mobile usage and specifically smartphone usage, which suggests this is a non-notable neologism as well. Congratulations! You're paying $100 a month for spam! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced piece about a neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy

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

No evidence of notability. Coverage in niche publications only. Coldnorthwind (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just done a quick search and found five full-length reviews of Diesendorf's book [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and three other supporting sources [20] [21] [22]. The book obviously meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). Johnfos (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnfos. Bucketsofg 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:NBOOKS. Seems to have been reviewed in several academic journals. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NBooks, which it meets on several points. The text is also cited on several sustainability booklists. HarryZilber (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Θ10

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

No secondary sources given to establish notability. Search of Google Books found a single mention as part of an example in "Representations of Hecke Algebras at Roots of Unity" By Meinolf Geck, Nicolas Jacon, no "significant coverage" as required by GNG. The subject is a representation of a group which does not have it's own article. Notability tag was removed by the author with no improvement to the article. RDBury (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Adams and Deshpande references are both secondary (survey articles about this exact topic) and in addition there are several research articles about it. I think it's enough to meet the threshold of being the subject of multiple independent reliable and reliably published works. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in the WP sense, and properly referenced. As it says on WP:BEFORE, point #10, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". To the nominator: please use the talk page to raise such concerns, since the article creator can probably meet them. Counterexamples to the Generalized Ramanujan conjecture should not be regarded as cruft-like in any sense, but are typical of technical areas that may require some opening out for the general reader. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first response was to add the notability tag but it was simply removed by the author with a rude comment. So it was apparent to me that the author was unwilling to address concerns and the article was unlikely to be improved by normal editing. If the subject is encyclopedic as a counterexample then the material should have been added to the other article. Sections of articles are preferred over single paragraph articles which are unlikely to be expanded.--RDBury (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are supposed to raise concerns about articles on talk pages. Your going directly to AfD rather than trying to engage in discussion looks like pique; and what is "apparent" to you is not the issue. I really doubt you know enough about this area to make the judgement you are jumping to, there. This is deep, serious mathematics and your reaction should be to try to find out more about what is going on in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #10 you quoted above says "and/or" add a cleanup tag. My talk page comment would say what's in the tag, no secondary sources given. I think I did my due diligence in trying to find secondary sources myself and there appeared to be none given in the article. So I still fail to see how I didn't follow correct procedure. You seem to be trying to create a rule that only someone who is an expert on a subject can propose an AfD. If that was the case then arcane topics such as this would never be nominated. I assume you're not trying push the idea that every journal article ever published should have a corresponding WP page. In any case, I think this shows I have at least a rudimentary understanding of representation theory, so how much expertise should someone have before you consider them qualified?--RDBury (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adams source is secondary and was present in the article at the time of your tagging and your AfD. So your repeated assertion that no secondary sources were given is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of wikilawyering (or special subjective reasoning) adds up to any amount of common sense in these situations. Raising concerns on a Talk page is the first and basic move in getting newly-created technical articles into better shape. Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is there for a very good reason. WT:MATH can help with third opinions. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, maybe we should all go back and re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I regularly check the new articles section in WP:MATH for content errors: notability, referencing, content forks, etc. My purpose is help WP maintain the standards set in WP core policies. When I see an article that lists nothing but journal articles and conference proceedings in references then it's a red flag that it may not meet GNG guidelines; these guidelines require secondary sources and there are good reasons for this. In this case my response was to add a tag to the article since it states "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic," exactly the concern I was trying to raise. This is consistent with WP guidelines. Articles that I have created have had such tags added and my response was to address the concern. In this case though the author didn't do that, or even leave the tag in place so it might be done by someone else. Instead I was accused of "driveby tagging" so I concluded that the author was unwilling to even listen to concerns about the article. In these circumstances I think AfD was the logical next step. Perhaps I could have tried another round of "raise a concern and be rudely dismissed", but the onus for establishing notability falls on the author, not on me. (Which is not to say I don't have to at least try, and I did that without success.) In this discussion I've been treated with condescension ("I really doubt you know enough about this area") and accused of "wikilawyering" and I'm trying not to respond in kind, so maybe we should all re-read Wikipedia:Civility as well. In any case, we no longer seem to be discussing the delete/keep issue. To me, the article still about one representation (of many) of one group (of infinite). If its significance is as a counterexample to a well known conjecture then the material would be better placed (and probably seen by more people) in the article about the conjecture than in a separate article that is unlikely to be improved beyond the stub stage. There is no guideline or policy that requires this though so I'm done arguing about it. I'm not trying to win anything here, I'm only trying to make WP better in my own, imperfect way.--RDBury (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability says it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions", the obvious price to pay for having a GNG. Just so. You are speculating again about the article remaining a stub. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Symplectic group, given (1) the inevitable lack of context when treating θ₁₀ on its own, and (2) the fact that, as the article notes, the notation θ₁₀ is used for (at least) two different things. A quick search finds the notation θ₁₀ also being used in other areas of mathematics, which makes θ₁₀ a poor article title. However, the material is clearly notable. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article is far outside of my area of expertise, it certainly appears to have been discussed in detail by reliable sources so I don't think deletion would be appropriate here. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that the $\theta _{10}$ representation has been studied on its own by multiple researchers in reliable sources, and even has a survey article on just this representation, the topic is clearly notable (to me), and there is ample scope for an independent article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Chix

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

Declined proposed deletion. Was PRODed due to lack of reliabe sources. Some sources were added when the PROD was removed, but one is simply a product description and the other is an article that is about the profit margins of the company that made this toy which mentions the name of this product but offers absolutely no discussion of the actual subject of this article. Does not seem to have been a notable toy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing enough sources to satisfy WP:N. This book entry through google books: [23] Another more minor google books hit [24] There are also a lot of google news hits that together add up to substantial coverage, just some examples: [25][26][27][28] and the "just specs" source in the article also has a much more substantial review:[29] Siawase (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are out there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – I'm satisfied with the reliable sources out there to establish notability. –MuZemike 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ibanez#Guitars. Redirected to preserve content should someone want to make a new article or add material to the Ibanez article. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibanez products

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

No indication of notability, no encyclopaedic content, no sourcing, WP:NOTADVERTISING. See [30] for identical proposal. Kilmer-san (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only scratches the surface of products produced by Ibanez, and most if not all entries in the list are not notable.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an advertisement. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a seed of a potential article here, but I think it needs to go to userspace first to be expanded on. The Ibanez page already includes a list of guitars, though it is getting large, and I can see merit in keeping the product list, with any notable background (such as signature models or purchase of Maxon) included in that, as a separate page to the main one dealing with the company history and culture. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agariadne Dwinggo Samala

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

Does not pass musician or biography notability bars. All sources found are non-reliable (blogs, Facebook, etc.). Danger (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real refs, his band doesn't even have a wiki page yet, they don't even seem to have anything more than a Facebook page. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article, non-notable singer & unencyclopedic content. Keb25 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Music, seems like advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Celestials#The_One_Above_All. (effectively a merge as the useful material is already there) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Above All

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

This article about a Marvel Comics fictional character is an (older) duplicate of the article One-Above-All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with dashes) that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Above-All for original research issues. This article appears to have substantially the same problems (it has at any case even less references than the deleted one) and also does not establish its subject's notability, containing no out-of-universe references. It might possibly be merged to some appropriate list of characters. Sandstein 06:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not at all the same character, it is another character with a similar name. The one with dashes was indeed an OR construction of putting numerous vague references into the idea of what the comics' universe saw as "God", whereas the without-dashes is a Celestial and a legitimiate character unto itself. (It does look like the previously deleted article is for some reason now a redirect to this one, which is likely part of the confusion, and people have tried on a few occasions to inappropriately merge information from the deleted article into this one, but that has always been reverted.) At worst, this character could be merged into the Celestials article. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but this does not address how this character is notable (WP:N). The article says that it has only appeared in six or so issues of two Marvel comics. So we don't have notability either by third-party coverage or by virtue of being a very important character in a very notable work. Sandstein 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its section in List of Celestials. Agree with BOZ it is not the same character. Agree with the nominator, Sandstein, there is no sign of notability. The character has between 10 and 20 appearances.[31][32]--Crazy runner (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and there is no evidence that any article about him can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work as there are no reliable secondary sources that give reception or significance for the fictional character. In fact, there are no reliable third-party sources that address the character in detail, so Wikipedia should not have an article about him. All that shows up with a search engine test are unreliable sources. As the character is already covered in sufficient detail in List of Celestials, I do not believe that a merge is needed at all. Jfgslo (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn to pursue (or not) individually. Withdrawn to pursue (or not) individually joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall ShredMaster

-- you're honestly suggesting deleting the pages for these pedals because you don't think they're notable? i'm not going to go off on a rant about how the deletionism trend on wikipedia is ridiculous and simply counterproductive, but a lot of these (like the shin-ei, for example) have no other sources of information except for a fortunecity page and maybe a few message board posts. you don't think it's worth having a page to collect this information? isn't that the point of wikipedia, not to delete this information because one idiot thinks they're smart enough to determine that it's not notable information for anybody else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.232.69 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basically a catalog entry of a product. Not notable. No third party, reliable, secondary sources. Kilmer-san (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following guitar effect related pages for the same reasons as listed above]:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not familiar with all of these, but some are certainly notable. I would be amazed if the Big Muff and Dunlop Cry Baby for example hadn't received significant coverage from guitar mags. I disagree that these are simply 'catalog entries'. They need sources but at least some of these belong here.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See this for example, and this ("Finally, in 1971, Electro-Harmonix released its Big Muff, which defined the sound of distortion in British and North American progressive rock for the next two decades."). I would suggest closing this AFD and unbundling these, listing only those for which sources cannot be found. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could these be split out into individual entries, as I have different opinions on each one. Dunlop Cry Baby should at least redirect to Wah Wah Pedal. Incredibly, I found no obvious news articles documenting the Cry Baby, even though I instantly recognise the name despite having never owned one. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those is a plausible search term and should be at minimum a redirect. And, List of guitar effects pedals is still a redlink, which gives us an obvious solution here, don't you think?—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. As pointed out above, these devices aren't suitable for treatment en masse; they need individual treatment. I think Big Muff is clearly notable per the association with John Martyn, for example. The problems with the ones I checked out seem to be more with sourcing that with genuine notability, and there probably are print sources to be checked for the earlier generations of devices. Just not suitable for a group nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at this point. Thanks to all for the input. I will AfD individuals with a higher threshold of care. Cheers.Kilmer-san (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WITHDRAWN, with plan to resubmit individual articles. Kilmer-san (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor David

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

Not notable as an actor. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although, there isn't anything wrong with a stub, I didn't get any Yahoo or Google results with reliable sources to sustain any more information. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a stub, but the actress is listed on Internet Movie Database. Page should be kept and expanded.MichaelJPierce (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom has given no reason as to their opinion. Easily passes WP:NACTOR as this person has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television series. Even starred as the title character in the MGM-released film Sylvia. --Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Oakshade. She's had starring roles in significant productions and her work has been the subject of specific commentary in reviews, e.g.[33]--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Arxiloxos. GNews search shows more than critical mass of reviews, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade and Arxiloxos. Starring roles in significant productions and suffient reviews. Edward321 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Personal note. There's currently a flock of chickens right outside my house. Perhaps I should write an article about them :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Freeway chickens

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

Not notable. Rs chen 7754 04:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollywood Freeway. This interesting subject can get a brief mention there. Dough 48 72 04:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. There are four in depth articles in the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source, as well as Three books (the top three) that go in depth about the subject of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG isn't an end-all be-all; there isn't enough to write a substantial article. (note the "presumed"). --Rs chen 7754 21:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast; this is a well-known piece of Los Angeles urban lore, covered in a wide variety of media outlets[34].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Warden (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ There are no in-line citations. Of the sources provided, two have a non-serious tone (more storytelling than reporting, without primary sources given, and in one case illustrated by a drawing masquerading as a photo). The third is Snopes which is a Reliable Source but IMO does not really demonstrate notability. I'll see if I can find some better sources. Also the article needs rewriting in a more encyclopedic tone. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The chickens are clearly notable; they received nationwide publicity during the 1970s. I have cited half a dozen news stories in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hollywood Freeway. Would fit nicely as a section there, as that is the notable topic of which this is a facet of. One has to ask, if this content was already in that article would you consider it large enough to become a content-fork? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only does it easily pass WP:GNG with the significant and national coverage from multiple sources, the significant coverage spanned decades, not just a "flash in the pan story" of a bunch a chickens that got loose one day. I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against a merge as long as all the content is preserved, but I generally think much of this material is out of place in the Hollywood Freeway article and can make that article too long. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, by evidence of sources. I better place to merge would be Feral chicken since that is the topic of interest not the freeway, although I think the article should stay as it is.Borock (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would oppose a merge, to Hollywood Freeway or anywhere else. This is an article about some feral chickens, not about a road, and there is no place in the Hollywood Freeway article where it would fit. Nobody has provided a reason to even discuss merging, since the subject easily passes WP:GNG on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, likewise, doesn't demand an independent article for every topic under the moon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,", and so per WP:GNG "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The burden is on you to explain why you think this article should be deleted/merged even though it meets WP:GNG. Is it just a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No... I clearly explained my position above; this is a content-fork, or a derivative article. It is a single noteworthy (as determined by WP:GNG) incidence that doesn't necessarily require a stand-alone article. WP:I don't like it wouldn't even apply here, as a redirect would place a reader's browser at the appropriate section of the target article, and no content would be lost in the process. Note, again as has been mentioned, the word "presumed": "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", and not "it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The point here is not deleting content, but organizing it with other, relevant content. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a "single incidence"; the news coverage cited extends over a period of 30 years. Furthermore, there is no good place for this information in the Hollywood Freeway article, which is entirely about the road (as one would expect). The sections of the Hollywood Freeway article are "1 History, 2 The route, 3 Notable Features, 4 Legal definition, 5 Exit list." Where exactly are you going to put this non-automotive information? And WHY? --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2 or 3. It would fit easily as a subsection in the Notable Features section. The article is about the road, its history, and the surrounding land. It includes important/notable events that happened or are happening along the road. The chickens are one of these kind of events. A single incidence doesn't mean one news story or at one point in time, it just means this is a single topic: The feral chickens under one overpass on the Hollywood Freeway. Even the title suggests that this is a content-fork of Hollywood Freeway! Why? Because the two topics are directly relevant to one another, and because this is an interesting story regarding the road, but certainly too disambiguous a topic (ie X in Y when we already have an incomplete Y article) for its own independent article. Combining the two produces one improved article, as opposed to one non-comprehensive article and one stub. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article under discussion here is not a "stub"; it is a fully developed article with eight references. (BTW it now describes TWO flocks of chickens under TWO overpasses; the adventure continues!) The "notable features" section of the Hollywood Freeway article refers to features OF THE ROADWAY, and the "history" section likewise is only about the road. I seriously disagree that combining the two would produce an "improved" article; I think this item (irrelevant to the Hollywood Freeway except for its name) would clutter the Hollywood Freeway article and make it worse. You and I disagree on this; let's see what consensus says. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a summary and a main link to this article in the article about the Hollywood Freeway, but I don't see reason to merge it. The colony of feral chickens are notable enough on their own, and appear to have originated independent of the article about the road itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best way to handle this topic. And it's a correct observation that this wasn't a fork from the Hollywood Freeway article, but this article developed independently. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not saying it was intentional by any means, I was just saying that if this were already a section in the Hollywood Freeway article, would you try to split it out into a new article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect as the topic does not have enough reliable sources to support a separate article. Gillicutties (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)— Gillicutties (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How are the numerous sources with in-depth coverage about this topic from books and articles spanning several decades make it "not have enough reliable sources"?--Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is reliable, non-trivial, and found in multiple sources. I see no reason not to have an article on this. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YSoft

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

Declined prod, the company appears to me to be non-notable, also possible one of two nodes of a walled garden. No significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find, more eyes welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete – I can't seem to find much independent coverage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know the words: a multinational company developing solution called SafeQ that includes software and hardware. SafeQ enables companies and organizations of all sizes to control reprographic costs and reduce waste. The main strenght of this solution is the unique HW and SW technology invited, developed and produced only by YSoft company. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As Organised crime in India Sandstein 06:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian mafia

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

This is not a WP:NOTABLE topic. Some of the organizations mentioned in here are notable enough for their own articles, but I am unable to find a single book about the "Indian mafia" in general. It does not seem that these groups are normally covered as a single unit, in the same manner as the Sicilian mafia, etc. I think the content of this article should be merged into the articles for the groups that it covers, and then this one should be deleted. Mesoderm (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how it is that you were "unable to find" this book? I really want to know how that happened. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below regarding this extremely low quality source, and the overwhelming (1900 to 2) usage of "organized crime" + India vs "Indian mafia" in university sources. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that Bollywood at least recognizes the Indian mafia. Some of the material, for instance about individual bank robbers, should be removed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are Bollywood films about imaginary organized criminals, and several of those films are notable enough to warrant their own articles. However the notion of the "Indian mafia" (analogous to the Sicilian mafia) does not exist in the large majority, if any, of these films; nor does it exist in books, news articles, etc. For example, Nayagan might portray Varadarajan Mudaliar, and both the film and Mudaliar are WP:NOTABLE. However this does not mean that we can just make up a concept called "Indian mafia" to group all of the things like Mudliar and the Bollywood movie into. The concept of "Indian mafia" itself is not notable enough to warrant an article. (i.e. If all we can find are one or two Bollywood references to it, then it's not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article.). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notable topic here is probably Organised crime in India. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I return to this AfD, the more this push for a move to Organised crime in India reads like an attempt to WP:CENSOR the article title because it's somehow offensive to speak of India having a mafia. Thing is, we have this thing WP:COMMONNAME that contradicts using unnecessarily abstract titles, and WP:TITLECHANGES specifically speaks against placating people with moves like this. Which is why we have Russian Mafia, not Organized crime in Russia. I see no compelling reason this article should be an exception to these principles. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks. I have no personal connection to India, and don't give a shit one way or the other if bad things are said about it. I nominated this article for the reasons I described in the nomination. That said, the reason that we have an article on Russian mafia is that there actually is a Russian mafia to which scholarly sources regularly refer by that name. Compare this and this and this. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that the sense in which there is a "Russian mafia" is no more or less than the sense in which "mafia" has become a generic for organized crime, the way Kleenex became a generic for facial tissue, right? Which makes the assertion that there is organized crime in India but there is no "Indian mafia" a little bizarre. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indian Mafia is not a Notable topic. The information could be merged into the Mafia Raj article or the Corruption in India. --Vic49 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is organised crime in india, but not in the same form as other mafias, like the nom points out. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't whether Indian organized crime resembles organized crime in other regions, but whether this topic receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support a claim that it's notable. It pretty clearly is. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change the title--Carnold30 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source review shows highly likely notability as coherent concept. In particular, addressing one of nom's raised concerns, see this book. A skim of the Google News links shows a pretty solid degree of currency for the term in RSes. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this article's AfD notice was improperly removed on July 1st, two days after nomination, and not restored until July 7th. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like this topic certainly has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, here are a couple more: [35][36]. A move to Organised crime in India might be a good idea though. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That move is probably contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and the injunction at WP:TITLECHANGES not to make up titles as a way of compromising between POVs. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a consensus but if the AFD tag was off for 4 days then procedurally we should relist this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change name to Organised crime in India, that is a notable topic. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the nominator, I would support keeping if the article title was changed to Organized crime in India, which actually is a notable topic. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic has clearly WP:GNG-satisfying topic as "Indian mafia", how is it not a notable topic as-is? I mean, I already pointed you at the entire book whose title is identical, modulo grammatical article, with the article's topic (y'know, the one you were apparently unable to see at the top of the Google Books results when you wrote the nom), and the term is all over Gnews. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book from APH Publishers seems a bit dubious to me -- not just the low publishing quality and lack of citations, but the fact that I can't find anything about the editorial quality of the publishing outfit (which apparently can't even muster a working website). It does not seem like it satisfies WP:RS. It is also very odd that there are so many scholarly books and papers talking about Organized crime in India, and that none of them use the term "Indian mafia". You'd think that if an "Indian mafia" actually existed, that these books on organized crime would mention it, wouldn't you? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is questionable, shrug, okay. In my experience at AfD, usually a source gets a fair amount of weight if it has an ISBN unless there's something radically wrong with it (like being one of those Books LLC pustules). Even so, this query has nineteen pages of results -- I mean, dude. That's a lot. The equivalent query at Google Scholar readily shows your assertion about scholarly sources to be blatantly false, even if I would expect the term to show up less often in material for a scholarly audience just because it's "street" in tone. The fact that you bring up the question of the existence of an "Indian mafia" seems kind of telling, to me -- going with the undertone to this whole thing that you, and maybe WikiProject India, don't like anybody saying there's an "Indian mafia". But it's not really relevant; the issue here is whether reliable sources cover the topic, not whether the topic exists. If we had an AfD on Gandalf, his existence wouldn't be the issue. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to what I said about the organized crime books. Why do you think that of the 1900+ books from University Presses that mention organized crime in India, that not a single one of them talks about the "Indian mafia"? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I responded; I thought my Google Scholar link was refuting it. But if what we're doing is hitting Google Books with inpublisher:university, okay, try this query. Why it never occurs alongside the term "organised crime" within the Google Books corpus of university press works, how would I know? The most likely thing would seem to be that the term doesn't have a lot of currency in university presses. I don't find this shocking, and it pretty much goes to what I wrote below. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with 1900+ links from university presses that talk about "organized crime" in India, 0 of which use the phrase "Indian mafia". You provided me with a search query that returned 10 items. Of these 10 you provided, 7 actually talk about organized crime in India. (2 talk about American Indians, and one is about a racist term used for Indian software company owners/investors in Silicon Valley). Of the 7 that are actually use the phrase "Indian mafia" in relation to crime in India, two are about Bollywood; 2 of them use quotes around "Indian mafia" as if it is slang; one says "were portrayed as a kind of Indian mafia"; another says "assignment that was later headlined The Indian Mafia"; and one actually says "There appears to be no Indian Mafia ...". You have hardly made a convincing case. Anyhow, I'm going to let other people share their opinions for a bit. If 1900 to 2 scholarly sources (if you count the Bollywood references, which I think should be in a subsection of the Organized crime in India article) can't convince you that Organized crime in India is the WP:COMMONNAME, then I don't know what can. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding your Google scholar results, "indian mafia" -"american indian" -"native american" returns 64 results, while "organized crime" india returns 17,400. Again, your "evidence" is hardly refuting my point, only supporting it further. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, okay. The thing is, the term "Indian mafia" clearly has way more than enough coverage for it to be notable. But if it really is a significantly minority term for Indian organized crime, then the right thing to do isn't to delete this article (because notability doesn't support deleting it), it's to write a more general-scope Organised crime in India, drawing on all these scholarly sources that cover that topic and so on, and cross-reference between the articles as appropriate. That way, Indian mafia can cover the specific topic of what's discussed in reliable sources under that name, and refer to Organised crime in India for a broader perspective, and vice versa. Then we have a state of affairs that adequately reflects the treatment the material gets in our sources, and we don't have to abuse the notability guidelines in deleting a topic that clearly satisfies them. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per multiple reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is clearly notable -- and rename to Organised crime in India, as the term 'Indian Mafia' doesn't appear to be in common usage. A Google search indicates that the terms seems to be more associated with Native Americans than Indians.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Indian mafia is real and is headquartered in the Silicon Valley but the term is usually used tongue-in-cheek (at least in the early years) and it refers to the roughly 200,000 Indians who work in the software/tech. industry of the valley. Amongst it's members is Vinod Khosla whose wife Neeru Khosla is on the advisory board of the Wikimedia foundation. Numerous Bay Area newspapers can be cited as sources for this but here's a CNN Money article. Obviously the article title needs to be renamed and the various contexts need to be set correctly. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not what this article is about. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. We have plenty of content for it to grow. It may even become a good or a featured article someday. I agree though that it should renamed "Organized crime in India". There are also the links between the Mumbai criminal Dawood Ibrahim (currently in Pakistan) and the Pakistani ISI, the links to terrorism, etc that can be covered in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, expand. It seems to me that the topic of the article is notable enough, but to read the article gives one the impression that there is not a singular "Indian Mafia" but rather a collection of different groups which would fall under the heading of "Organized Crime in India". I don't think the article should be renamed due to any sense of "offensiveness", but rather for the sake of accuracy. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Organised crime in India, or similar name, as discussed. The title is attested, but POV and more offensive than the neutral "Organized crime in X nation" type of title. Another rescue? Bearian (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search shows 122 results. The news media does in fact refer to an Indian mafia, and even refers to their leaders as dons. If this is an improper use of the term, then just rename the article Organized crime in India as others have suggested. Dream Focus 11:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westland-Grove City football rivalry

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

Defunct high-school football rivalry. Doesn't satisfy WP:N or WP:NSPORTS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school football rivalries are normally not considered notable for our purposes here, and I see no reason to make an exception with this particular one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navio Forge

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

Not notable by the standards of WP:MUSIC. Was nominated for deletion once before, but only kept because of "no consensus", as little or no real discussion took place. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons in the previous AfD. Why that was closed as no consensus I don't understand. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While we seem to have consensus this article should have some other name, we do not have a consensus what that name should be. Discussion of that should continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunamis in the United Kingdom

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

Bizarre content fork. As the article itself states, tsunamis are very rare indeed in the UK. The only examples in the article are two minor historical events, both of which have their own articles, a tsunami in Portugal which possibly affected the UK, a 'peak wave' of 40cm this year, then speculation about the future possibility of there being tsunamis there. Bear in mind here that no other countries have their own 'tsunamis in..' page, presumably because as by their very nature tsunamis don't happen in countries but out at sea. Historic tsunamis is perfectly capable of holding this information. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be a good idea to create these for countries where there are many tsunami (like Japan, Hawaii/Alaska) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps. Tsunamis happen at sea, they usually affect multiple countries. For Japan and Alaska I can understand the case for an article. But for the UK? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, Alaska and the UK are all countries bordering the sea that are affected by tsunamis - I don't see why you think there is a difference between them.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article details three significant historical events, two of which were certainly major tsunamis. I don't see any valid reason to delete - certainly not because tsunamis are rare in the UK. To allay the nominators later concern that "tsunamis don't happen in countries" perhaps a rename to Tsunamis affecting the United Kingdom or even List of tsunamis affecting the United Kingdom might be appropriate (or Great Britain if we want to refer to the island not the country) --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre nomination. The topic is notable - see this book for pages of details about UK tsunamis. Warden (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the references it seems just notable enough for an article. But rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles. Surely we need a geographical region instead of a political one. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, as several entries predate the political entity. Possibly convert to list format. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - Everyone who is voting 'keep' here - do you think it would be reasonable to create 'Tsunamis in...' articles for every other minor geographical region of the world? If not, then why do you think the UK (or British Isles if you prefer) is special in this regard? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very reasonable. Just as Tsunamis affecting Japan, Earthquakes in New Zealand, or Hurricanes affecting Barbados would all be reasonable articles. Is your only objection "we don't have many articles like this yet"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is special because this is the English Wikipedia. Its readership and editors will naturally be especially interested in events in this part of the world. Note that there was a TV show broadcast by the BBC this evening which discussed tsunamis in the British Isles. This will have had millions of viewers here. The topic therefore has considerable notability. Warden (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 应该删除，支持Pontificalibus--俠刀行 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep seems to be enough there, agree with Dingo1729 rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles this will allow for expansion. Mtking (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Tsunamis affecting the British Isles with Tsunamis affecting Great Britain as a redirect (at least for now, a separate article about the island of Ireland could be split off at a later date if required). Lists/articles covering other countries/regions should also be created where sources exist. Alternatively or additionally the articles/lists could be organised by bodies of water (e.g. List of tsunamis in the North Atlantic ocean or List of tsunamis in the Irish Sea) but the 1755 tsunami affected more than one body of water so it may not be as good. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the tsunamis here are covered in reliable independent third-party sources (except possibly the 2011 one which is a borderline WP:NOTNEWS) - maybe not as much as Alaska or Japan, but still more than enough. Some room for debate over how this information should be arranged, but as most of the events listed here are not covered elsewhere, deletion isn't an option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the events listed here ARE covered elsewhere, they just aren't linked properly yet. The exception being the 2011 one you don't like. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are linked elsewhere, there is still, at the very least, a list that is not available anywhere else on Wikipedia. There is scope to debate whether we should just have a wikilinked list or a wider article summarising each tsunami with links to the full article elsewhere (both are perfectly normal or acceptable on Wikipedia), but that's not what AfDs are for - that's for a content discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be enough verifiable sources to support such a list. I strongly encourage the name change to British Isles instead of UK based on the dates of events prior to UK existing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Serinsky

AfDs for this article:

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

Per discussions with the previous closing admin, and per WP:NPASR, I am re-nominating this article for deletion. The previous AfD resulted in no consensus - there was my !vote as nom, and a keep !vote by a single-purpose IP. My reasons for nominating last time was: "I do not believe being considered as a member of a notable band (without actually joining that band) meets WP:MUSICBIO, even if mentioned on mtv.com. The other band this person was a member of is not notable." Subsequent to the AfD closing, I tried to verify the IP's reasons for keep, and came ot the following opinions: a) the fact that "the musician is signed" is not a criterion for WP:MUSICBIO, and b) the fact that the person was a backup guitarist for this tour does not make him notable, especially as he recieved no significant mention in any of the reviews. Singularity42 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced BLP and the external links are to things like a defunct blog, a Wikipedia mirror, and a story calling him "unknown" that passes on a rumor that was false. I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources that discuss this musician. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he's famous for not being in a notable band? By that logic, I must be deserving of a Wikipedia article, since I'm not in the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Metallica or the Bee Gees. I'll start writing it now. Can't believe this had to be nommed twice... Yunshui (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Weston

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

The subject does not meet the notability of WP:MUSICIAN. Her time on the show "The Voice" was not enough to be notable, and while she did have a cover single that reached 90 on the The Top 100 list, she still fails the notability of WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She made the top 2 on Adam's team.... it was notable enough??? what are you talking about????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaq91 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes criteria #2 and #9 of WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing a couple the base criteria indicates that the subject may be notable, as per WP:MUSIC; however there appears to be no RS of notability outside of The Voice. Fails WP:GNG, as per nom. Yunshui (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As AA points out above, it appears that she meets WP:MUSICBIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, one author who has blanked page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faheem thalib

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. Sixty-four Google results for the name, mostly directory entries. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable, per nom. Yunshui (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any discussion of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Life! The Crisis Musical

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

Non notable musical, some adverts, but I'm not finding significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to be a minor play, written in 2006 by a couple in Marion, Indiana; and performed only once in 2007 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Probably not significant for a dedicated article. Perhaps it could be added, instead, into some "List of US plays opening in 2007" if such a list exists. --Noleander (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still not finding reliable sources, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Novosel

AfDs for this article:

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. He never won a league championship and did not play very much at that level. His saving grace might be that he scouted for the Yankees. Alex (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Fails WP:WPBB/N as he did not play nor coach baseball at the highest levels. Finally, the fact that the nominator of the AfD was also the article's creator and main contributor should erase any other doubts for deletion. —Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Essene Legacy Book I – The Promise

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

No assertion of notability and no references. (The hits I saw on Google were adverts.) As another problem, our current text seems to be the same as the product description at amazon.com so we have CV concerns. (Only hits at Google Books seem to be books reprinting WP articles.) RJFJR (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhito Namekawa

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

fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. no major tournaments won, no signficant coverage of achievements. just a few passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody is convinced that this is a notable artefact, apart from "Rovasscript", whose username indicates a possible conflict of interest. Sandstein 06:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homokmégy-Halom Rovas inscription

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

Notability and content currently under other deletion discussion Vanisaac (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a fringe theory content fork. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas. This is part of a rash of articles created by the same editor, all of which are at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. This indivdual artefact may scrape the notability criteria. However, the article was originally used to support the existence of an alleged "Khazarian Rovas" script. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas.) If kept, the assertions in this article need to be checked for accuracy and the degree to which they actually correspond to the sources cited. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete as a scientific description of a well-known famous relic. A transcription made by an officially acknowledged Hungarian scholar Assoc. Prof. Vékony is included, which is surely correct. However, if anybody knows a more accurate, published transcription - it is possible to include. This article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alensha's arguments in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Szarvas_Rovas_inscription should be considered in the case of this article as well, since the same authors are referred in the both articles. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to Homokmégy-Halom inscription and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have seen nothing which indicates why this particular artefact is notable in any way. There are literally thousands of artefacts that have small inscriptions on them, and very few are appropriate for Wikipedia, as they do not represent an important source of information on a culture or practice. I still vote for delete. Vanisaac (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it still isn't notable and the "decipherment" is quite unlikely. -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. Incubating here. m.o.p 06:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator (2011 film)

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

Non-notable movie. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is an upcoming film and as yet has not been released. It has notible actors hense they are all on wiki bar 1 it has a big budget and has been written by AWGIE award winner marc rosenberg.Craigster92 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore It is a completed project and has a Trailer released, It is not likly to change as production has closed It awaits rlease date.Craigster92 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument falls under WP:NOTINHERITED, I'm afraid. ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am stating the case, the argument has been made that the film is not notable, the film has not yet been given a full release. It contains notable actors & writers who are on wikipedia, this is part of the criterian for notibility. The argument against unreleased film is they are subject to change, and hence are not allowed there own page. This is a completed project which has just been test screened.Craigster92 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are mistaken. Beacause it contains notable actors & writers falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though the article and IMDB state that this film is to be released this year, searches on other reliable sources such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or ComingSoon.net have come up empty. Therefore I do not believe that this film passes WP:GNG at this time. Also as noted above, notability is not inherited. ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow the article to be userfied for the time being, to see if this film actually gets released. IMDb indicates no distributor for this film and only a vague release date of "2011" (no month or day). Userfying the article would allow it to be edited while being kept out of the mainspace until the film is actually certain to be released to the public. (If nobody wants the article to be userfied to their userspace, it should be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal to userfy (Craigster92 might like to have a crack at it!), currently violates the Law of the Hammer. Yunshui (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It can be created as it becomes more notable. Not right now. [User:Grim Littlez|KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ]] (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy makes sense to do it this way. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of the term userfiy but i'm happy to keep it till the film is given a full release, I think I read september but I cant remember the source Craigster92 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Userfy" means that an editor can take the article under their wing, out of mainspace, to continue work until ready for a return. If "userfied" to you, it will be at User:Craigster92/Elevator (2011 film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or perhaps either Incubate or Userfy for a very brief time. Film has/is receiving coverage: The "press" page on the official website links to 16 different articles about the film, and diligent searches find more. IE:Daily News & Analysis Ecrans Scifiworld et al. Though User:ArcAngel may have missed them in his own search, the significant coverage for a film that has begun principle photography as required by the GNG has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK National Defence Medal

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

Article is confused between private campaign to have a certain medal created and the proposed medal itself. Appears to serves largely as publicity for private interests and individuals. What reliable sources there are are passing mentions, and only contribute to a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. ninety:one 14:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very useful to give an overview of the position for and against, it is a good start point for research and general knowledge. It may yet evolve into the facts of the medal if/when it is finally instigated. 1 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.116.237 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article seems to have been written to promote this campaign, and there are no indications of notability. A Google search of this term returns only the campaign's website and Wikipedia mirrors. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject of the article, through the reviews of the books they've written, meet criterion three for creative individuals ("The person has created,…a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of…multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). While the article in it's present state isn't great, that's not the discussion here. The consensus of the discussion here shows to me that the article needs improvement but has enough notability to be kept, so I am closing this as keep with cleanup required. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spitz

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

With its likely copyvio photograph, this person doesn't seem to have been subject to significant coverage as an individual. His books may have (though it's not clear either...) but he's not, as far as I can tell. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spitz is a music journalist that has contributed to major publications in the United States. Rolling Stone, Spin, The New York Times, etc. His biographies have been well reviewed and his new biography on Mick Jagger is likely to have huge coverage as it's a response to Keith Richard's autobiography, "Life" from 2010 and there was a very large printing (39,000+ copies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrausny (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has he been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Below are links to a collection of Marc Spitz's original articles in Vanity Fair and Spin as well as reviews on his latest book in The Telegraph and The Washington Post.

Vanity Fair archive
Spin Magazine archive
The Telegraph reviews Bowie by Marc Spitz
The Washington Post reviews Bowie by Marc Spitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrausny (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are those articles about him? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the last two, yes, of course they are. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely sure that they're not just reviews of his books that don't cover him as a person "directly and in detail" are you? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on now, this guy is one of the most famous music journalists in the world. Don't want to assume that this is a bad faith nomination but it certainly seems that way. Needs sources, of course, lots of articles do. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITSNOTABLE and (unjustified) WP:ADHOM then? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Famous music journalist. will assume good faith for nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT: if he's "famous" then you shouldn't have any difficulty in citing sources which discuss him directly and in detail, as is required. Please do so. And I resent the suggestion that I acted in bad faith (=why did you even bother to say that I was in good faith otherwise?) ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book reviews are perfectly adequate to demonstrate notability per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources found, school does exist, and WP:NHS. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Harts School

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

No reliable third party sources used to indicate notability. A search also came up with no notable third party sources Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Srinagar#Education for now. At present, I can't verify that this is a high school. I would add that prodding within 20 minutes of creation, without giving any substantial guidance to the creator is hardly the way to encourage new editors. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I'm seeing very few google hits and nothing in reliable sources. A redirect might be ok though. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, it is not unverifiable. There are reliable sources that confirm that this is a school in Srinagar. Here and here for example (albeit misspelt sometimes). What I can't verify is that this is a high school. I see no reason for deletion rather than a redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't actually care whether it's a high school: notability depends on the amount of attention received from the world at large, not on the age of the students. (The rule of thumb about high schools reflects the fact that high schools tend to receive more attention than elementary schools, not some intrinsic importance to high schools.) We've got a few independent sources that could be used to expand the article in small ways, and the existence of these makes me strongly suspect that more such sources have been WP:Published, even if they are not easily found through our favorite web search engines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hahn (actress)

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

No assertion of notability for this child actress and no reliable third-party sources either (the only one is the usual IMDB link which, as the message states, is not reliable for biographical information). Past articles on similar child actors including Hannah Unkrich, Charlie Bright and Beatrice Miller (as well as this article) have all been deleted due to similar issues.trainfan01 talk 8:07, 1 July, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Playing Bonnie in Toy Story 3 and Hawaiian Vacation not an assertion of notability? Just playing a principal role in one of the most financially successful films of all time is enough to pass our standards. Also had guest starred in House M.D. and Falling Skies just to name a couple so the topic does pass WP:NACTOR. The articles mentioned by the nom were speedy deleted because either they were created by banned users or had no content. And why was this opened in the "places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade's analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Dingell

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

Fails WP:BIO; I can't find any sources that establish her as a notable individual in the public arena - other than as the wife as an elected politician (but, WP:NOTINHERITED) Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--not all politicians' wives are notable, but Debbie Dingell certainly is. She's been the subject of significant coverage in the NY Times as a major lobbyist for General Motors [37], she's active in Michigan politics (chaired Al Gore's campaign in MI), and is in general a significant figure at the intersection of politics and business in Michigan. How would Wikipedia be improved by removing this article? Meelar (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have independent notability as a party activist and lobbyist, here's another (paywalled) source about her: [38]. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ms. Dingell is an elected member of the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY. That piece includes some biographical detail to aid verifiability, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Head Burritos

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

Non-notable company. Coverage seems to be entirely articles in local newspapers saying that it has opened a branch Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs improvement, but not deletion. The restaurant does have their own website (http://hotheadburritos.com/) and copyright, making it verifiable. --Sarah.Maretich (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm saying that it isn't notable, that is, that there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A few mentions in the local newspaper do not constitute significant coverage. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Article clearly meets WP:CORP and the GNG based on the sources. Steven Walling 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This restaurant chain seems like it can be notable. However, I'm concerned about this restaurant being portrayed as a competition to Chipotle Mexican Grill, as Hot Head Burritos has eight restaurants open while Chipotle has around 800. Also, the article states that Hot Head plans on having more restaurants than Chipotle by 2014, something of which concerns me in terms of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Otherwise, I don't think it should be deleted, although it could be expanded and sourced. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it meets WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage appears to be more than routine mentions. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duets (a stage play)

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

Non-notable play. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; author is notable, play is not. Yunshui (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While NOTINHERITED is generally not strongly applicable to creative works, the author is not sufficiently notable to create a presumption of notability for each of his works, and the productions of this work have not received sufficient coverage to justify an independent article. Were there more content, this would be better merged, but with so little unduplicated content and a less-than-standard title, I can't even see converting this to a redirect to the playwright. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pentel

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I believe consensus on individuals such as Pentel has shifted since the first AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unsuccessful candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I agree with Muboshgu's description of the current consensus on such articles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like with the first AfD, notable Green party activist and was a Minnesota governor candidate. Easily passes WP:GNG - Minnesota Public Radio did a major in-depth piece on him here. The Star Tribune also did a piece on him.[39]. --Oakshade (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've definitely heard of him before; he's notable. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received significant enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, even if he doesn't make WP:POLITICIAN. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is there is no notability here, and there is no sourced content to merge. Courcelles 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hboot

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

This article is about one specific moment in the lifetime of the booting cycle in Android phones only. There is no evidence of any notability of this subject. A google search yields many unreliable sources (forums and blogs). In addition, the only source on the page is a link to another wiki. I have checked Android (operating system) and Booting, and it would not be reasonable to merge the article into either of them. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kilmer-san (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the opinion of not notable by a few does not constitute deletion. the importance of this stage in boot cycle is an increasingly popular area of concern now. Edufur (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the job of the article to prove notability. This page does not meet the general notability guidelines. Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It merely takes a Google search of 'What is hboot' to quickly realize that there is a lot of information in forums; but a more official publication (such as this one) is needed to solidify what it is. Forums such as XDA, Android, HTC, and Dell all are starved for an area of definition even though it is clearly known in the developer community. This makes it notable. And this site makes it more official. If you took the time to do the research, I am sure you would agree. By your present argument, I could argue that most of the content in Wikipedia doesn't deserve to exist. However, any content is good, as long as it isn't false. The bytes of storage are not costing you anything. Edufur (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem here is stated in your post. An official publication is needed to solidify what it is. Wikipedia is not the place for a publication to solidify what something is. That makes it original research. Wikipedia must be based on reliable third party sources because the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. As I stated in my deletion reasoning earlier, a google search yields forums and blogs not reliable, third party sources. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, I stand corrected. Here is at least one credible source of information that paints part of the picture. Based on satisfying your objection, I see no further reason to push for deletion. http://linux.die.net/man/1/hboot Edufur (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This one case merely proves the existence of Hboot. It does not give any indication of the notability of the subject. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        THAT case is a strong resource (non forum) of what it is, satisfying your second objection. The first objection of notability is easily satisfied by searching forums or even HTC's communication page where they are being hammered by users who are furious that hboot is not unlocked for the EVO 3D. The question of hboot often arises in many forums. It is very notable as these forums have a lot of traffic. Edufur (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Android OS or similar. This is a portion of a boot cycle, of course there are tons of ghits, but Google hits don't prove notability. This is no more notable than any other moment in any OS' boot cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said notability came from 'ghits', I said that notability is easily satisfied by searching forums or even HTC's communication page where they are being hammered by users who are furious that hboot is not unlocked for the EVO 3D. The question of hboot often arises in many forums. It is very notable as these forums have a lot of traffic and activity!! Edufur (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.39 (talk) [reply]

I understand, I should be more clear. In my opinion these really aren't reliable sources. Because of the nature of technology you will get a lot of discussion and GHits of many technical processes and files and parts of boot loads that really aren't separately notable. A good example would be almost any minor .DLL file. Though it's not notable there will be thousands upon thousands of forum posts about it, what to do when you receive "cannot load foo.dll", what programs might overwrite foo.dll, and so on. That can give a false impression in my opinion. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mirdad

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

Essay like article consisting mostly of personal opinion, unreferenced claims of notability and quotes from the book. Not clear how this might meet WP:NBOOKS RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is in a pretty horrible state, but there are hints that the book may be notable. This author compares the work to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (it may also help to decipher who our mysterious Kenneth Walker of the final paragraph of the article is). It's also discussed in this book. There's a paragraph in this book. It's also listed in here, which doesn't say much by itself but, given the name of the book its listed in, it may be an indicator that it is taught on a undergraduate course somewhere. That's ignoring all hits that seem to come from New Age or mystical type sources (including Osho). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it was totally un-sourced I stubbed it and added in some of the sources pointed out above. I think the scholarly attention that it has received indicates that it meets WP:NBOOKS. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). More people might have not read this book,since only 3000 copies are in circulation. I read the Tamil translation published by Kannadasan Pathippagam, Chennai. The translator has to travel few thousand miles to get a photostat copy of this book from Dayanandha Ashramam in Rishikesh, India. There is absolutely no information why only 3000 copies are available through out this world. There is no idea why this small information about this book is being in the process of deletion. A lot more is hidden from the general public about this book. Kindly do not delete. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Miles McKinley

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

Non-notable composer whose music has been heard worldwide only because it was posted on mp3.com under old management. Incarnatus (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Incarnatus (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COMPOSER is very vague and seems to allow for any reasonably notable composer to be considered. This composer does not meet any of the criteria. He also does not meet any criteria for the category directly below. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure but I alerted the wikiproject involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to be the son of William Thomas McKinley [40]. Inclined to delete at the moment but willing to change my mind. The scores appear to be self-published on lulu.com (stores.lulu.com/emckinley). What recordings there are are on a label started 2 years ago, [41] (unless there's another MMC). There are few hits in Google News [42], but nothing really in depth. Oviously talented, but notable in the "Wikipedia sense"? Probably not. CV is here. Voceditenore (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference just added to this article about the recording of his string quartets on the MMC label and independent review in a respected venue (Allmusic--see Wikipedia link) establishes notability in the field of contemporary music composition. Scot Johnston (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not talking about Leopold Mozart and Wolfgang Amadeus here. It's more like J. S. Bach and that son of his who also wrote music but it only gets played in order to compare him to other members of the family. James470 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Spirits Intellectualism and Logic

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

No indication of notability for this book. Only one third-party source is cited, and it's a three-page piece written by the same person as the editor of this on-wiki article, in what seems to be more of a local newsletter than an academic journal. I looked around Google and Google Scholar and found no mentions off-wiki. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by the author). There has been shown a great deal of interest in tis book and accompanying article. Nearly 3,000 [2,873] have read it without a DYK to alert potential readers. The quotes explain positions better than paraphrasing.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are almost entirely primary and I can confirm the nominator's lack of Googlable sources. Its Amazon page lists this book as out of print, so while I appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this, I don't see it as suitable for inclusion. Not opposed to Transwiki if there's an appropriate target. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to L. L. Clover. The author seems notable, the book not so. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect No proof of notability outside notable author - and notability is NOTINHERITED. Yunshui (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though this sounds like a highly amusing read, I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'vee also be revdeling the copyvios that were expunged Courcelles 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Jess Leaverland

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

Declined speedy with some talk page discussion about notability. An AFD can settle it. No !vote from me. causa sui (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, even though the tone and content of the article are unacceptable. Wikipedia is international, and the question of her notability in the UK alone is not the whole point, though I think she passes GNG guidelines on that with profiles in the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail as well as a lot of exposure on the BBC to name a few examples. The only question is whether it can be dismissed under the WP:EVENT guidelines, but it is 18 months since her win and the coverage and interest has been sustained long enough. The rule, therefore, must be improve not delete. --AJHingston (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I speedied this not because of any lack of notability (on which I take no position), but rather because it is blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Several parts of it, possibly even more than I noticed, are copyright violations, which generally call for immediate deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO1E her win could be sufficiently covered under the article on the contest, the promotional tone only strengthlens the need for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree that she fails WP:BIO1E when there are articles such as this in the Daily Mail, this in the Sunday Mercury, this in the Evening Times, all long after the "event" in question (in which she was watched by 70 million TV viewers). Those are in addition to what is already currently cited, and just a sampling of the more recent coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO #9. Also, the article has been somewhat NPOV'd since it was nominated, doesn't look like an Ad anymore. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gallo-Romance

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

This whole page is WP:OR. It claims a single historical document, the Strasbourg Oaths, as the only extant example of "Old Gallo-Romance" but general scholarly opinion is simply that this document is the oldest example of Old French. There are some older minority opinions that the Strasbourg Oaths don't show enough specifically Old French characteristics to make them Old French, but this opinion is not currently accepted. There is no entity called "Old Gallo-Romance" described in the scholarly literature. The closest would be the reconstructed languages Proto-Gallo-Romance or Proto Northern French. Benwing (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. CapnPrep (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion, but I'll remark that I am one person who has edited this article - mainly just to make the table better. I was interested in the Strasburg oaths themselves. I had just assumed the term Old Gallo Romance had a clear mainstream meaning. (I think I've seen it in other articles in WP?) If it does not, for example if the term is used but not in any way the field clearly agrees upon, then it should presumably be merged to Old French for example. HOWEVER, just reading the deletion proposal on its own terms, if the term has a clear meaning as a term referring to a designation which is not universally accepted, then perhaps the article should not be deleted but adjusted, to explain that Old Gallo Romance is a term sometimes used to distinguish older forms of the language which evolved into French? BTW the article as currently written does not claim the Strasburg oaths to be the only exemplar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article does refer to the Sequence of Saint Eulalia but this is almost 100% agreed to be Old French. There is little disagreement about the Strasbourg Oaths being Old French either; it's simply that their spelling is vague enough that some expected early Old French features (e.g. diphthong /ei/) are not visible. But there are plenty of clear, undubitable indications that the language at this stage CANNOT be ancestral to Old Occitan. In general, you just can't find "Old Gallo-Romance" at all in the scholarly literature. As for the other WP articles mentioning it, all those mentions are OR and I've removed them. Benwing (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that response makes perfect sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about the topic, but I note that there is no directly corresponding French article. The French article corresponding to Gallo-Romance languages starts with the words, "The Gallo-Romance languages (or the Gallo-Romance [language]) are a traditional classification category of the Romance languages." This suggests to me that the Gallo-Romance languages are sometimes referred to (at least in French) as if they had been a single language. The "Old" part appears to be where the original research is located. I would expext that the closest approximation to "Old Gallo-Romance" is Vulgar Latin. Hans Adler 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a convenient and commonly-accepted branch of Romance, but that doesn't mean that these languages all go back to a single identifiable language (other than VL, of course, which is also just a convenient label for something rather more complex than a single language). Additionally, all of the translations of the Oaths appear to be OR, esp. the "Late Latin" translation. If there is anything to be salvaged from this article (e.g. sourced information about the evolution of the two-case system for nouns), it could go into Gallo-Romance languages. CapnPrep (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much to be salvaged. I just added some more stuff in the section on Gallo-Romance languages in Romance languages, which maybe should move to Gallo-Romance languages. I also have a bunch of text I've written about the evolution and dissolution of the case system in the old Romance languages which hasn't yet made it to the article. Benwing (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add, that it might be possible to reconstruct a "Proto-Gallo-Romance" as a putative ancestor of the Gallo-Romance languages (with different "Proto-Gallo-Romance"s depending on which languages you include in the G-R languages). But none of these are the same as the language of the Strasbourg Oaths. Calling this language "Old Gallo-Romance" rather than "Old French" is the OR. Claiming that the language of the Strasbourg Oaths is an ancestor of Old Occitan is OR, and demonstrably false to boot. Agreed on the OR of the Late Latin translations. Benwing (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I just added Old Gallo-Romance Language to the AfD request. It's just a redirect to Old Gallo-Romance, but should get deleted at the same time if we delete the page itself. Benwing (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point in the discussion it's appropriate to !vote delete both. Hans Adler 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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