Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 2

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to My Scene#Movies. delete and redirect, no need to keep content as already covered Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Scene: Masquerade Madness

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

fails notability, is little more than a stub. SailorSonic

Delete: My sister had this DVD when she was younger. This is non-notable which isn't surprising since it was released in packages of My Scene dolls. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies where this one is already spoken in context to the other My Scene films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies. Grande (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African Tax Administration Forum

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

No evidence offered that the forum is notable. (Disputed prod.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable international organisation. Here are some sources which cover it: [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6]. The African Tax Administration Forum is obviously an important financial institution in coordinating the tax administration of African nations as can be seen from the sources, and there is no reason to delete it. --S Larctia (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This organisation strives to aid in the development of African tax policies and administration procedures. With 33 members (from a possible 54 sovereign states) it can definitely be considered notable. More sources include [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Namens univ (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is obviously notable, per the comments above and as an organization in which many African countries are involved. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing noted above establishes that the inclusion criteria is met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Belyout Bouchentouf

The result was Speedy keep, retracted nomination. (non-Admin closure) Tachfin (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication that this person really existed and no sources in the article. I don't think the subject is notable. Tachfin (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN as mayor of Casablanca, a very large and important city. A Google Books search verifies in English that he "existed" and that his family has a close relationship with the Moroccan royal family. Many French language sources are readily available. There is a strong presumption that Arabic language sources exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep then since he really existed though some of the claims attributed to him in the article are false e.g "founder of Casablanca". I'll try to improve referencing of the article Tachfin (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ikagami

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

No evidence that this is anything other than a hoax or, as stated on talk page, an obscure fictional superpower. No asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, feature of the Power Rangers according to the talk page. --S Larctia (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ika Origami ≠ Ikagami. --Lambiam 07:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable in-universe work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I think it is genuine if very obscure, but either way it is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ikigami. This hoax is so obscure that even the Japanese have not written anything on this topic. (Ikagami would be written 烏賊紙 in kanji.) --Lambiam 07:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly non-notable if it isn't a hoax. --DAJF (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, minute content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I spent 10 minutes actually researching this. Found nothing. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German collective guilt

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

This is a dab-page-shaped article (and its creator calls it a dab page - see Talk) but it is not a dab page - none of the articles have titles which are ambiguous with "German collective guilt". If anything needs to exist at this title, it is not a dab page. PamD 22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - the article now has real content, thanks to User:Colonel Warden, so there is now no basis for the nomination. The AfD process has been successful in converting a non-article (formatted as a dab page) into an asset to the encyclopedia, by prompting someone to take an interest and re-create the article. Thanks! PamD 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, as it turns out there's actually three different versions of the article that people are voting on. Also I take issue with the assertion that the version re-created by Colonel Warden is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Compared to the original version from a few years ago, it's highly pov.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my AfD nomination was on the basis that it was a content-free non-dab page (this version), consisting only of a set of links which might be a "See also" section but were insufficient to form an article. I came across it while stub-sorting as it had been tagged as a stub, although described as a dab page. I might have speedied it as "No content" but thought AfD more appropriate for an article which had previously been deleted at AfD. So I now withdraw my nomination because the article has been edited sufficiently to meet the reasons for the nomination. PamD 07:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. We should close this AfD - for a dab page - as irrelevant now, perhaps noting somewhere that the closure of the AfD is not meant as any kind of endorsement of the current version (which I think has serious POV problems). I guess the issue of what the actual article should consist of can be hashed out on the talk page then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix it. An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email it t if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed. I see that User:Molobo was blocked as a compromised account in 2008, after previous blocks--there is a long history, part of it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence. Considering the history, I'd rather not restore it even to user space unless someone is willing to promptly use it. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's there to fix? The term gets virtually no hits, and I find no evidence that "collective guilt", whatever the hell that is, is mentioned anywhere in association with Germans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your computer has parental controls or some other filter set? I see hundreds of references to the topic. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic known by various names, I would support a move to Collective war guilt though to make the topic more encompassing (and thus more likely for a balanced Article). If you dont know what it is, count yourself lucky. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's a notable topic, it should be covered by an encompassing article, not a dab page. I'm not arguing against the existence of a collective guilt associated with wars and particularly WWII, but currently, it's exactly the kind of compilation of related subjects a dab page is not supposed to be. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable topic. Any defects of the current version should be addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the current version is labelled as a dab page: remove all the non-ambiguous entries and it becomes empty and speediable. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as a stub and the links labelled as a "See also" section ... but then it comes under CSD A3 as having no content other than those "See also"s. Such "defects" are pretty fundamental. Deletion of the article at present would not prevent someone from re-creating it as and when they had any actual content to include. PamD 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article so that it has more content. Deletion was not required for this nor were the defects fundamental: it was just a matter of taking the skeleton and putting flesh upon the bones. Warden (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable topic. See these sources: [12], [13], both of which cover this particular topic in great detail. There is no reason to delete the article now that it has some content, although it needs significant expansion. S Larctia (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a request from Col W. for the earlier history to be restored to his user space, but I do not know how to technically accomplish it while preserving attribution. I've never figured out the more complex merge/unmerge procedures. I have therefore restored the entire history; at the end of the discussion, whatever is decided can be done, and whoever knows how to fix it properly can do so. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the topic itself is notable and has been the subject of several scholarly and popular works. However, the current version [14] is highly POV and frankly embarrassing to the encyclopedia. It pushes the whole "Germans were the real victims of WW2" (because they had to "suffer" de-Nazification, because Germany lost territory as result of the war, etc), which is straight out of far-right literature (in countries, such as modern Germany and most other European countries, where outright Holocaust-denial is illegal, this theme that "Germans were the real victims of WW2" is the way that neo-Nazi parties get around this law). The *real* article should be about to what extent the German public of the 1930's acquiesced or supported Hitler and the Nazis and the implementation of the Final Solution - that is what the sources are actually about, not this extremist right wing propaganda bullshit that currently makes it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For relevant example see also the German wikipedia version [15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the article and the agreement that it should be kept. I'm afraid there was absolutely no intention to make this a POV piece, and we need to strike a balance in the article between the commonly held viewpoint that German collective responsibility did exist and the commonly held viewpoint that responsibility for Nazi atrocities existed only in much smaller groups of individuals (the armed forces, SS and higher ranks of the Nazi party). Perhaps the article should be moved to German collective responsibility for Nazi atrocities to clarify the subject of the article, as it could also refer to German collective guilt in the fighting of WWI, which is much more dubious. S Larctia (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are reasonable suggestions, as are some of the comments by Tomjakobsen at the first AfD [16]. I'm beginning to think that neither the current version (not the dab) nor the old version are/were NPOV, though in very different ways. Perhaps having two articles here would solve some of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying for then blocked user Molobo. User:Radeksz as he is known as in the findings of of fact of the linked to Arbitration changed his name to "Volunteer Marek" after it. Today Volunteer Marek has, while using the words "restore last neutral version", restored the old version of this article that was deleted after AFD as beeing completely non-neutral. The old version that by the way was originally written by Molobo, mentioned above. Note the AfD date of 2007 October 11 in the version that Volunteer Marek "restored".[17]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 06:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What does that have to do with anything? "Your" version is obviously chock-full of weird stuff about how supposedly Germans from Nazi Germany where "the real victim of WWII", which as I noted above - and for which I can provide reliable sources - is a standard far-right tactic in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. And if you really wanna drag out old stuff I can certainly find some choice comments of yours from the past, like this innocent question about the Holocaust. So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history.

However, there is in fact a problem with this AfD. We have one version, which was recently restored by User:Exit2DOS2000 [18], which is all about this supposed "Allied propaganda" and how the British and Americans where oh so mean! to the Germans after world war II, without even a mention of Nazi atrocities, or we have the older version [19] which was about alleged support among Germans for the Nazi party and Hitler. So there's really 2 AfDs that should be taking place here. Like I said above, reliable, scholarly sources, when discussing "German collective guilt" refer to the latter - for example Goldhagen's well known book [20] (I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the subject matter). Hence that should be the subject of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Article to the version that This AfD is talking about. Please do not make major revisions without discussion (esp. to previously deleted versions) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't seem to have done that: this AfD was created when the article was in this version, a dab-like article with no appropriate content for a dab page. PamD 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand stand corrected ... I brought it back to the point of Colonel Warden's edits (and his reply in this AfD of 23:12, 3 September 2011) that addressed your disagreements with the Article. In my mind that was the current state of the Article, that was discussed (or the generally agree'd upon) version. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... ok, theoretically restoring the old version for the purposes of this AfD would be fine. But:

1) Calling that version "npov version" is just ridiculous.

2) When this AfD was made, the article was NOT that version, but rather a disambiguation page. So if you were going to restore it to the proper version, then that would be the disambig version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Since you are not an administrator I think it is important that others understand from where you managed to access the text of a deleted article. As for your accusations of "far-right" apparently aimed at the recent editors of the article, I would advice you to be very careful about such personal attacks, given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed it from the article's history that's where ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_collective_guilt&oldid=163820008 here). And I'm not accusing any person of being far-right, what I'm saying is that a particular POV (blaming everything on the Allies instead of a Nazis) is representative of what one usually finds in far-right sources. I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that. And please stop making threats, I've been on Wikipedia for close to seven years, have my share of bruises and my block log is fine. Quite modest in fact. I also orient myself quite well in these disputes and I know what particular editors are usually up to. I'm not going to be intimidated here so don't try to bully me please (like you tried to do above and like you're trying to do now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, might as well note that the 1st AfD was made by a user who's now indef banned from Wikipedia.

Let me clarify also that when I looked at the historical version of the article I thought the AfD notice referred to this particular one. I didn't look close enough to see that the old version was subject of an AfD as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and comment. The subject is notable, as close to 500 Google book hits return results for the topic. At the same time I have not looked at the article in any detail nor its history, which seems complex, and I am certainly not able to say whether it is biased. The article may warrant tagging and rewrite, but that is the matter for article editing and its talk page, not for AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been adequate sources found. The article is fine now. Dream Focus 03:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is clearly notable - content can always be fixed. Agathoclea (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is well known and notable. The content should be extended to provide appropriate background and more recent information about public opinion in Germany. Biophys (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Altringer

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

Original author requests deletion, Too many other edits for G7. For history note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Altringer and then Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 2 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ronhjones. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In searching for sources, she appears mostly in the context of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and gets quoted or mentioned in conjunction with Randy Quaid's shennanigans. There is no significant coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden track

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

Dictionary definition with a HUGE and completely arbitrary example sheet. Trim, split the examples or delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. The "received heavy radio airplay" list has clearly collapsed into a meaningless list of every hidden track people can think of, but a few of those examples seem fine, and the rest of the article seems factual and sourceable enough. --McGeddon (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason advanced for deletion, and the subject appears encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge any non-notable albums/bands. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the examples could/should be trimmed, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. —Mulad (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling EQ

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

Completing unfinished nom for IP editor. Heavy COI in article, minimal sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to salvage here: reads like an advert, close to deleting on G12 grounds. There may be an article which can be written about this group, but this ain't it. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orange Mike. Article lead assaults the eyes of the common man with thinly veiled promotional writing. Has no WP:RS to go by other then user-generated content websites. Phearson (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs Wikification. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CustoMess

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

I found zero significant coverage for this software. The creator of the software started the article. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any notable third-party mentions on this company on search engines, nothing on Google News. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article was erroneously speedy-deleted as a copyvio. Restored because the presumed source is clearly a Wikipedia reprint; AfD reopened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling, the only thing I found was the book reprinting this WP article. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction to Mountain Dew

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

fails WP:GNG. Of the five sources:

A dead link, and has been since june, so quite how the creator used it as a reference I don't know;
Reference to a single occurrence of someone drinking enough Mountain Dew that the news (not medical professionals) classified it as an "addiction";
An Onion article;
A fansite;
And, last but not least, Facebook.

Three of these are not reliable sources, one of them doesn't exist, and the remaining one in no way supports the idea that there is such a thing as a Mountain Dew "addiction". Addiction is a medical term, not something that's just thrown about, and this article not only fails to provide any notability but fails to provide that the phenomenon even exists.Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to be honest, I'd be tempted to say this is perhaps even G3-hoaxable. — Joseph Fox 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—the topic of soft drink addiction is more or less covered by the caffeine addiction and sugar addiction topics. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soft drink addiction. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These problems are not specific to Mountain Dew but are common to most sodas and caffeinated beverages. Tooth decay already has its own article, addiction to sugar should go into sugar addiction and possible addiction to caffeine/energy drinks should go into caffeinated drink, caffeine and/or energy drink. Imo, the current content should not be incorporated into existing articles and no redirect is needed because there are no incoming links. jonkerz ♠ 20:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, inherent OR/synthesis patched together from bad sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject based on original research and synthases of generic soda addiction. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could rename the article and expand it a lot more as I realized that it is harder to write about this specific drink itself than about soda in general. This was a hard article to put together, though, so expanding it will open up many new possibilities. I'm amazed that I didn't reference the 20/20 documentary on it, as that was the origin of my intrigue with this subject. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as hoax... Is this not obvious? Addiction to Mountain Dew is a condition which affects people who drink Mountain Dew, with a concentration in central Appalachia. Combined with improper dental care, tooth decay occurs amongst people suffering from this condition. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, Carrite actually said the D word. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about, Mr. Hammer? STATS. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite feeling the strong urge by my inner-comedian to vote keep most def a G3 The Terminator p t c 23:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find evidence of the Diane Sawyer segment, merge. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was going to nominate this after fixing the bare URLs. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable synthesis. Chuck Norris would be ashamed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yenny

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

WP:ILIKEIT (baby got back... and feet), but I can't find any reliable sources. It may be syndicated by GoComics, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article said it was published in Primera Hora, but the claim had been tagged with [citation needed] for three years and I couldn't verify it. There are no secondary sources to be found when searching "Yenny" + "webcomic", "Yenny" + "David Alvarez", etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also if this goes, then David Álvarez (artist) probably should too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving Álvarez the benefit of the doubt for now since he's worked on far more than just Yenny. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have added to the article a citation to an interview with David Alvarez, focusing primarily on "Yenny", which was published in a book from a university press. The reason this "keep" recommendation is "weak" is that the comic is still not very high-profile and much of the article is unsourced character descriptions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My research has turned up many sources regarding it. Check it out here.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All I see are false positives (some actor named Yenny something) and "Dave Alvarez, author of Yenny, said blah blah blah". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AERA Corporation

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

Non-notable company without any accomplishments. Its website has been dead for more than a year, so the company has probably already folded. Fails WP:CORP. Included is the following related pages because it seems to be the same company:

P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 15:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. No obvious notability here. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company has been around for a while. I found some mainstream press from MSN and the likes. My research has found that this company was orginally called American Astronautics, and possibly, if I can find some more evidence, the first American commercial space traveler provider. That alone is notable. Doesn't matter if it is out of business, most likely change names again, that doesn't affect its notability. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sruli Recht

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

Maybe fails WP:ARTIST? The subject might very well be notable as a designer, but the problem is that the article reads like a promotional piece and the links you would expect to demonstrate coverage are mostly links to homepages (that don't turn up coverage), primary sources on certain projects, and EL interviews on dubious sources. In terms of reliable, significant coverage, the article is lacking. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! The Google News link above turns up a ton while my straight-from-the-Google-News-homepage search turned up nothing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Holland

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

No Notability per WP:ORG established. Considering it was a political movement as claimed, the founder Kees Bierma would have been a politician, not actor. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am suspicious about this article. "Orange Holland" seems to be the name for the national football team of the Netherlands, not a political group. I couldn't find an article about the group or its leader at De Telegraaf http://www.telegraaf.nl/ I can't find a reference to the group in the Dutch Wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not really a name for the football team, merely a phrase that is likely to come up in connection with the team, which is associated both with the color "orange" and the name "Holland". However, I have also been unable to find any online references; I suspect this may be a hoax (and even if it's not, it's almost certainly not notable). Ucucha (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Near certain this is a hoax. Buggie111 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – another hoax, and not even entertaining. --Lambiam 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point dragging this discussion along if this article is a hoax. 11coolguy12 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreaming (EP)

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

No notability established per WP:NALBUMS. EP is self-published, not released by a record label, nor is it generally distributed or released on iTunes. Further, this article was restored from deletion (I PRODed it), and the IP that requested undeletion, said "dditionally, I feel that these pages should collectively be available to anyone else who is seeking to learn about the 2nd band created by the lead singer of a major, notable, and successful, though now defunct, 1990's band." To this, I answer, notability is NOT inherited. Thus, I doubt the notability of the album. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, claim of notability by inheritance not even at first hand. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing fascism

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia:NOTE. Unlike Islamofascism, there is barely any discussion of "Left-wing fascism" in academia and is used by only a few notable people, one of which is fringe. LittleJerry (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of discussion of "left-wing fascism" and that includes academic imprints such as the OUP: Left‐Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice. Warden (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep — the term is used widely if not frequently, and by quite notable writers. the article is more than mere lexicography. also, one should also search on the german linksfaschismus for a more complete picture. we know the role that untranslated german phrases play in the academic weltanschauung. here's žižek using the term right here, and if it's good enough for žižek, it's good enough for wp, nicht war? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid misunderstanding, Žižek has explained that he used the term in an ironic sense, referring to the use by Habermas, when earlier he had written about unspecified "bleeding-heart liberals" who supposedly might accuse him of Linksfaschismus. So it's not as if the term has his approval. --Lambiam 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh my, i wasn't asserting žižek's approval. my point, perhaps not made as clearly as it might have been, is that it's used, so people ought to be able to look it up. is there some reason why ironically used terms oughtn't to have articles? it seems to me that ironical uses should be included in the article, and that if concepts have entered the discourse to the point where they're not just being used, but being used ironically, then a fortiori they ought to have articles. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the above I just wanted to spare readers a possible misunderstanding, but I must say that I find this argument weak. Many eminent writers have used the term "historical context". But that doesn't make this an encyclopedic, notable topic. What is needed is that writers have not only used the term, but have written about the term or the concept named by that term. --Lambiam 21:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many times do we have to repeat this? This article has been repeatedly rejected for deletion. This term is frequently used in sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well, it starts with the first bad "keep" call. Non-notable neologism and POV oxymoron were the common on-point opinions there. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the small detail that after the first bad close, the second AfD closed "no consensus," not keep. Quoting Soman from that debate: "article deals solely with a pejorative, which is generally a bad article subject basis for wikipedia. That said, there has been leftwing (in a relative sense that is, just like there was a Right Opposition in the communist movement) tendencies inside the fascist movement. That would be an interesting subject, but I'm not sure 'leftwing fascism' is the apt name for such an article (also, National Syndicalism, Strasserism, National Bolshevism, etc. largely covers this field)." Care to comment on the content fork aspect? Carrite (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that (socialist tendencies within the fascist movement) is the topic of the article "'Left‐Wing Fascism' in Theory and Practice: The Case of the British Union of Fascists" referred to above by Warden. (It is not an OUP imprint, but an article that appeared in the OUP journal Twentieth Century British History.) So the term has been used in that sense, totally different from what we have here, which kind of undermines the Colonel's "Keep" argument. What about moving the current article to Linksfaschismus, leaving the term "Left-wing fascism" for a dab page? --Lambiam 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Warden, good article. --S Larctia (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic pejorative. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A concept that has been used to the point of being historic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable and well-sourced. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - complete bollocks, but easily passes WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafco Trans

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

Not even remotely notable Darkness Shines (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no assertion of notability AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and G11. The tags I left were inappropriately removed by the article creator; I have replaced them. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Clementi, Singapore. Courcelles 22:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Entertainment Centre

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

Seems more like an advertisement than an article, also does not seem notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Clementi, Singapore. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Clementi, Singapore, there's notable information here that can be merged. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's clearly a consensus that the content doesn't belong here, but not much consensus as to where, if anywhere, it should go. Hence, I have userfied three of the articles to User:Black Kite/Multilingual list of Indian kin terms, User:Black Kite/Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine and User:Black Kite/Multilingual list of Indian animals and birds if anyone wants to use them. I have deleted the fourth article as it has already been transwikied. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual list of Indian kin terms

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

These four multilingual lists fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I don't know whether Wiktionary would take these, it is not clear to me if they take lists of translations. The four articles under discussion simply list the same word in a number of languages used in one country. They are not an encyclopedic treatment of language evolution or somesuch, but lists like you could expect in multilingual dictionaries.

Also nominated are Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine, Multilingual list of Indian plants trees and flowers and Multilingual list of Indian animals and birds. Fram (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Transwiki all of them to Wiktionary. Interesting enough to preserve somewhere, but unless we have some kind of article on Kinship terms in India, etymological and comparative material probably belongs there rather than here. Will probably want to break it up into Indo-European / Dravidian / Tibeto-Burman categories as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wiktionary would probably accept this as an appendix, but all the terms would have to be given in their native alphabets rather than in romanization. Angr (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of main "kin terms" article ONLY: I ran across this because I was searching for the English and Hindi terms for "Chembu" (turns out it was Taro/Ghuiyan) and found the multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine very useful. Because of our vast linguistic diversity, finding information like that is usually extremely hard. The "kin terms" article, on the other hand, did not seem to serve much purpose (I won't go looking for the marathi term for "maternal uncle" 'cause my maternal uncle speaks malayalam, same as me and I know how to say "maternal uncle" in malayalam. Serves no practical use, is my point.) But I may read a recipe written by a marathi and may not recognize what "alkudee" means (again, it's Taro) and might have to go searching for it. I suggest deletion (or move to wiktionary) of kin terms article, but recommend keeping the rest. Failing that, all these multilingual articles could be integrated into one, with redirects from the original terms.

Not sure if this should be here, or Wiktionary, or where: but as a Punjabi speaker, i find this of great interest! (And I should help fill in those terms at some point). Not least because the 'canonicalization' of spelling of these terms over time as we use the English transliterations regularly will be quite interesting to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiraj121 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sympathize with Smerdis of Tlön on the need to preserve, but I don't think any of the wiktionaries can add this as anything but an appendix anywhere and I just checked the Hindi and Tamil listings on en.wikt and they and they already have entries for the terms, Marathi is the only other language with native script and I didn't check that. If there's a ready recipient go ahead, else we're just dumping this on their shoulders. —SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Let's not lower our standards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to Wiktionary encyclopedic lists of dictionary entriesCurb Chain (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a lot of work done & hence dosnt seem fair to delete. A tranfer to another of Wikis would be good. But isnt there any chance to maybe modify it or merge it with other article & thus make it something more than just a list? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it's feasible, then a transwiki is possible. Does anyone have any ideas specifically to do so? Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Diez

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

Subject has only released one single, to little media coverage or public interest. Consequently does not meet WP:MUSIC. Nik thestoned 14:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Topher385 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I researched a good 15 minutes, found nothing of value. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yukon Green Party. There is a clear consensus that Calhoun does not warrant an article: the consensus is that the coverage in reliable sources is not sufficient, and that being the interim (or even substantive) leader of a provincial political party does not confer inherent notability. Delete !voters have not put forward any concerns with the redirect or merge options. Accordingly, the outcome is a redirect to Yukon Green Party. If there is any mergeable content, the page history is there. Please attribute it properly. Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Calhoun

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, she is only the interim leader of a new party, which has yet to see its popularity. She is also the only declared candidate for the party in the upcoming election, candidates alone are not notable. Notability has been questioned on the articles talk page, and Talk:Yukon general election, 2011#Green Party. Prod was contested. 117Avenue (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the sense of having a stub article on the interim leader of a fringe party. If someone wants her mentioned then mention her in the Yukon Green Party article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really, this is only an issue of her notability, not her party's. With no professional résumé other than becoming interim leader of her party and standing for election, she fails WP:POLITICIAN. She also fails WP:GNG, as there's not substantial coverage of her in reliable sources. (And this is where her party could back its way into the discussion: if her party were bigger, there might have been more press coverage of her selection as interim leader and profiles of her. However, it's ultimately not about how many sources write about the party, but how many write about Calhoun.) So, there aren't enough sources to warrant a full article on Calhoun, though she's probably worth mentioning at the Yukon Green Party's article, especially if she becomes the regular and not interim leader. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, C.Fred said it well. It's not about her party or her position, it's about coverage of her, of which there is very little. PK T(alk) 15:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, C.Fred said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable leader of a territorial political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspect of the notability guidelines are you asserting she meets? —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN 1, 2. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That requires her to have actually held an office, not just to have stood in an election. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Who are you, and why are you not registered? Also why are you removing warnings from your talk page? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who they are makes no difference, the point is you've have provided a weak reason for keeping this article and therefore it should be deleted. I think there has been enough discussion and the article should be deleted ASAP. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the warnings from my talk page because they were hilariously wrong. People kept using automated tools to restore vandalism that I had removed from Neil Francis (rugby union) as you can see in that page's history. However, that has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. Please keep the discussion here on topic, and comment on the content, not on the contributor. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If she meets WP:POLITICIAN #2, why aren't any of the stories cited in the article? (Conversely, to N&L, part of the reason the discussion runs seven days is to allow time for sources to be located—or for searches to be run to confirm that the sources aren't out there.)—C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the article. I believe I have 3 articles with her in them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles and you still only had enough information for a stub? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, yes. That's all I could get out of them. Perhaps you'd like to read them over for anything I missed? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space and redirect I don't think a credible case can be made that she is currently a "major local political figures who [has] received significant press coverage". She certainly doesn't pass 1 or 3, so the article should go. That said, we are at a moment when she could meet 1 or 2 shortly as she could win her seat or become permanent leader of the party. Leading a truly fringe party may mean nothing, but there is at least an argument that leading the subnational branch of the Green Party is notable enough for an article, but there is also an argument the other way. In any event, I suggest either holding on until after the election or, and this is the option I prefer, moving the page to User:Me-123567-Me/Kristina Calhoun, then changing the redirect target to Yukon Green Party. If these suggestions are unacceptable, either as a matter of consensus or as a matter of policy, my vote should be take as Delete. -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want it in my userpsace. That's not what I did the work for. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't suggesting it be put there as a trophy. If you go back and read more carefully what I wrote, I suggested it in case she actually does become worthy of an article in the short term so it wouldn't have to be recreated from scratch. -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Yukon Green Party. Even the three sources in the article focus more on the party than the idividual. Can be split back out later if Calhoun gains significant coverage. Resolute 16:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What content from the article would actually be merge-worthy? -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN should, in fact, specify that being the leader of a political party is considered a position notable enough to warrant an article, regardless of the party's or the leader's personal degree of electoral success — because WP:OUTCOMES certainly documents that that is the very clear and unambiguous precedent established by past AFDs on leaders of smaller political parties. However, it also offers the compromise that the person's name can be redirected to the party's article if we can't actually source or write much more about them than the fact that they are or were the leader a political party. Accordingly, deletion isn't really an option here, because the established precedent is that a leader of a duly registered political party is absolutely, unequivocally, no exceptions under any circumstances whatsoever, entitled to be either an article or a redirect — so keep if additional sources can be provided, and redirect to Yukon Green Party, without prejudice against future recreation if additional sources pan out at a later date, if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline is still the guideline, and even if generally party leaders are kept, there is a significant difference: she is just the interim leader. I noted above that if she gets the permanent leadership that there is at least an argument for having an article, but that isn't the situation. -Rrius (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no notability distinction between an interim leader and a permanent one; an interim leader has all the same rights and responsibilities as a non-interim leader does, except for the ability to choose the timing of their departure. Even as an interim leader, she can still lead the party into the election, and she can still serve as Premier if the party happens to win the election — so she's no less notable for our purposes than a permanent leader selected by a full party convention would be. It's certainly a different thing within the party infrastructure — but there's no real reason for it to be a different thing for our purposes if there are enough reliable sources about the person to meet our referencing and notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my eyes the sources meet the threshold for the general notability guidlines, the articles don't specificlaly have to be about here, but the do address her, in detail.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your point. It doesn't matter whether the sources are notable. What matters is whether she is notable. Getting mentioned in three articles about something else is not wide coverage. -Rrius (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was that the sources provided satisfy my requirements for a stand alone Wikipedia article about her. I see significant coverage of her (within articles written specifically about the Yukon Green Party) written by an independant reliable source, the Yukon News. I have also added a new section to the article, with the sources provided. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but I can't agree that two stories from one source and one from another satisfies the project's requirements for coverage. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are free to disagree with my interpretation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A couple of notes to add to this discussion. 1. It's the Yukon. "Significant coverage" might be limited to just two or three sources, because it's possible that's all that is available there. 2. Did anyone look at the Google results? I'm not sure how many are reliable, but there are quite a few. 3. The Yukon Green Party just started less than a year ago. It takes time to build up "more coverage" and that may still be limited to two or three sources. She may never be internationally famous, but residents of the Yukon know who she is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My Google News search only brought up a couple passing mentions by the CBC, one of which I added, but the two were basically the same statement.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That was my experience as well. People are getting caught up in numbers but are losing sight of how they matter. Sure, the Yukon is sparsely populated, so there aren't going to be as many stories as for people elsewhere. That said, the stories we have seen are largely duplicative, with the same basic facts mentioned about her in stories about the same basic thing. I don't think anyone denies that she could become notable based on WP:Politician; it's just that is not there yet. Interim leader leader of fledgling party is not in itself enough to make her notable, and the stories that mention her are not sufficient yet to confirm notability either. We'll just have to wait. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold for WP:GNG is "significant coverage" of the subject. Many of the sources just mention her as the candidate and talk about the party; however, the "Greens are a party of balance, candidate says" story from the Yukon News spends some column-inches on Calhoun the person. Regarding the quantity of sources, GNG goes on to say "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." I'm re-weighing my position; I'm no longer convinced that the article history needs deleted, though a merge to the Yukon Green Party may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yukon Green Party, redirect, preserve page history. I still think that the ultimate issue for a stand-alone article is Calhoun's notability as a person. It's a one-event biography at this point, really; yes, she's leader of the party and standing for election, but it's all within the activity of one election cycle. The tipping point for her stand-alone article will come after the votes are cast. If she wins, she'll be notable enough. If she loses but draws enough to turn her party into a player in territorial politics and continues in leadership of the party, or remains active in public life like a certain politician from Alaska has done, she'll probably be notable enough. If she loses and steps down from the party, she'll likely not be notable enough (but worth a mention in the YGP article, still). All of that comes down to future events, though; we shouldn't be gazing into a crystal ball to predict that. We need to go by what she's done now, and I don't see enough for a stand-alone article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked this before, but I got no answer, so I'll ask you: what content from the article would fit at Yukon Green Party. I'm all for preserving the edit history, but simply replacing the current content with a redirect without deleting the page would do the trick. Unless you're using "merge" as a shorthand for doing just that? -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that she is standing for election in Riverdale North and that she was briefly the co-leader of the party. I'm not sure it's relevant that she's a stay-at-home mom, though. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Political party leaders are notable.--Þadius (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was User talk pages are not AfD's remit. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:174.19.28.172

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

Test page. The talk page should contain warnings for the IP to stop vandalizing, but now it's nothing but trouble made from the IP itself. Inappropriate use of talk page? StormContent (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard; moved to MfD. StormContent (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Walker (journalist)

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

Delete. Meets none of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, the relevant requirement for notable journalists. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld

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

Completely unnecessary--doesn't disambiguate anything. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless "disambiguation" page. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Wrong use of a disambiguation page. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't disambiguate anything - Whpq (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on two grounds:
1. Deletion is an unacceptable solution in light of two main-namespace titles that have presumably become, during the last 54% of WP's existence, targets of numerous external links.
2. My perfunctory edit, moments ago, has rendered the page from a nominal Dab into a nominal Subject index article (that already preserves the validity of external links) and the germ of a better SIA which could grow into an article, drawing on reviews and bios, on the literary collaboration between two important children's authors. No argument for deletion that has been offered is applicable to the improved page.

--Jerzy•t 00:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response What would this article be? There is already a (short, mostly unsourced) article on one of the duo and a redlink for the other. Let's say that in a perfect world, we have well-sourced and thorough articles on both: why would we need this page...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory these two could be the next Gilbert and Sullivan.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In theory these two could be the next Gilbert and Sullivan, but see WP:CRYSTAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Christmas

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

Google proves that it exists, but Google News has nothing of significance on the concerts. I don't see how this is of encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and Drmies. It's probably worth a single sentence at KPWR#Concerts. tedder (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder, good point. I've gone ahead and nominated their other two concerts also, and would not, of course, be opposed to a merge:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see a few more comments before we decide the fate of 3 articles, two added after the nomination started. Courcelles 11:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect all three to KPWR#Concerts as suggested by Tedder. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:EVENT and nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this club is not high enough in the English league pyramid to be notable. There is no consensus here to create an exception to the rule for this club. Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Royals Football Club

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

This local amateur club has never played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in the FA Cup, the usual benchmark for notability at WP:FOOTY ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable club. Giant Snowman 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable club. Grande (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I may be biased on the topic, I feel that the initial point made with regards to the purpose of deleting the topic is not a worthy reason. There is an individual page on the Midlands Regional Alliance which this particular side plays in. Therefore I think it is very realistic to expect people who visit that page would also be interested in learning about the sides who compete in the league. Although I respect this is the highest level the club has played at and the future may count for nothing, there are plans to progress further up the Football League System. The club already has a very good reputation in the city of Derby, where it has forged a partnership with local side Mickleover Sports Club. They play in the EvoStick North league at level 7 of the Football League System, and Derby Royals have already seen players leave the club to sign for such teams as Notts County, Stoke City, Carlisle United and Derby County. I accept any decision which is made for this page and I also respect the procedures you have for making these decisions. But it does appear as though the reasoning behind this page possibly being deleted is because Derby Royals Football Club is not seen as a 'big' enough or popular enough topic to have it's own page, yet the Competition it competes in does. Adding further, I understand and respect that improvements need to be made to this page for it to stand alone within Wikipedia. I fully intend to make these improvements and also contribute to other pages, however I believe myself to be a kinesthetic learner who will improve by doing. I apologise for the length of my argument, but it was the best way in which I could put across my argument. Campbell777 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Level 13 is far too low. The level they play at is the same as the Trelawny League Premier Division, who boast Illogan Royal British Legion Reserves and Threemilestone (a team that plays in a park near Truro City) among its clubs. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response. In response to the above, the league you mention has links to sides at that level's wiki pages including Mullion F.C who play at the same level in the Football League System as Derby Royals. It does state in 1992 it achieved Promotion to the South Western League and claims it to be at level 10, however the page its self states it is at level 11. Campbell777 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep .this club will be moving to a higher level at the end of the season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.144.78 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — 86.3.144.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please see WP:CRYSTAL - there is no way you can guarantee that as an absolute fact nearly a year ahead of time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Promotion to the next tier isn't by way of promotion. It is by an application and then acceptance. So it is possible for a side to make such progress before the season's end. Sides at that level are also able to play in the FA Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.98.217 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, club play at a non-notable level of the English football pyramid. The Essex Olympian Division One (step 12 – a level above discussed team) is pretty much park football, and I don't even think they need a rope around the pitch at that level! If the club reach a notable level, it can be restored without too much hassle. --Jimbo^[online] 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To correct myself Derby Royals do actually play at the 12th level as opposed to the 13th, it was the 13th last season, which is stated on the Midlands Regional Alliance page. The club plays in a competition which includes Mickleover Sports, Borrowash Victoria, Holbrook Sports, Sandiacre Town, Belper Town and Gresley FC in which Derby Royals were defeated in the final on penalties. Their games are played on a pitch with segregation from the pitch for spectators and dugouts. As well as playing some games each season under floodlights on Mickleover Sports' Ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell777 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have given no weight to arguments by obvious spas and very little weight to non policy based arguments, The killer arguments are NPOV and the need for sources to specifically discuss this as a separately notable subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings of Muhammad

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

WP:SYNTH/WP:SOAPBOX agenda article. Sourced largely to primary religious texts and other outdated scholarship (not just the standard nineteenth-century free books, but medieval stuff too) or poor sources. However, this wouldn't pass muster even if all the sources were excellent and recent, because taking a couple of comprehensive biographies of Muhammad and making a list of every time he ordered someone to be killed (an interesting interpretation by the article creator which includes people killed in battle and executions for lawbreakers as well as assassinations and the like), approved of someone being killed, or knew someone who was later killed (seriously, check out some of what the creator considers to be Muhammad "supporting" the killing...amusingly, it contains a couple of instances of Muhammad telling his followers not to kill the person) does not constitute a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I encourage the closing admin to consider the large number of single-purpose accounts posting here and the fact that the deletion discussion was mentioned on at least one anti-Muslim website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "large number". There are a few (I tagged one), including some that the nominator incorrectly tagged, apparently in an attempt to discredit opposing arguments. I corrected one,[21] and an incorrectly tagged editor commented on his own.[22] In any case, the arguments are what matter, not the votes, regardless of who make them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPAs actually are a perennial problem, particularly in this topic area, because very often they're sockpuppets either of blocked users or of users who have already voted. The fact that most haven't even attempted to address the deletion rationale is also relevant, since you're pointing out that it's about the arguments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least two named accounts and two IPs are sock/meatpuppets. They should be discounted.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which accounts are sock or meat puppets? If you have proof have you reported them? Robert Brockway (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An RFC or peer review would have been a better avenue to get a wider community view. The nominator's rationales appear invalid, as follows:

WP:SYNTH does not apply here. No conclusion is being synthesized from sources. By their nature, list articles must use multiple sources to formulate the list.
WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, either. A coatrack is an article pretending to be about one subject when it's really a cover for another subject. That isn't the case here. This is a list article, it describes its criteria clearly, and presents a well-documented list.
The article doesn't rely only on primary sources. It cites numerous secondary sources, many of which appear to be scholarly works. Issues with reliability of the sources should be taken up on WP:RSN, not AfD.
The objection to the topic seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ascribing an agenda to the creator rather than assuming good faith. I agree that this list's scope is broader than necessary for such a list, and may suggest an agenda. But that is a reason to trim it, not delete it. I found the topic interesting from the point of view of how often an historical leader exercises their perogative to order assassinations (like the U.S. President recently did with Osama bin Laden), and I wouldn't mind seeing other lists like this if some uniform criteria can be established for them.

Finally, I observe that this article meets several of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. That suggests further improvement is in order, rather than deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article like this is inherently un-encyclopaedic. No similar article exists for any other leader, not does a similar article exist in other, established encyclopaedias. Furthermore, the criteria used to determine included individuals is flawed, as it includes people who were executed during/after battles, and it includes people who were executed according to law ( for the crimes of murder or adultery ). Never mind just being un-encyclopaedic and flawed: The article is just plain wrong. There are individuals who are pardoned, and yet are included to pad out this "list of killings." In reply to Amatulic above: Assuming good faith is very difficult in this case, when it is clearly a badly-cobbled, unresearched list. The acid test is simple: If I created a List of killings of George W. Bush and included Haditha killings and Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, would that article stay on Wikipedia ?! If the answer is no, would it be reasonable for a person to say: "But let us assume good faith. Let us keep the killing list for Bush and see if it can improved." ?! Unflavoured (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No similar article exists for any other leader" — are you aware this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently violates WP:NPOV because of WP:UNDUE weight. It flies in the face of assuming good faith, especially in the context of the principal author's lack of contributions elsewhere. These two (attempted) edits showing that they verge on a single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. If the author reads this, I hope he takes it as a warning from the community to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner and not with some sort of political axe to grind. Dzlife (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I don't think the initial rationale of poor sourcing holds water. Nor does the argument about "other leaders"; the comparison would not be against Bush, but against Jesus or Buddha or somesuch. In which case the obvious answer would be that the "list" in their cases would be too short to be a list William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two were military leaders. Try Moses. Unflavoured (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A soapbox article meant to promote a particular point of view. Jesus and Buddha weren't drawn into tribal conflicts as they attempted to preach their messages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if Muhammad was drawn into tribal conflicts, that is a notable difference from other religious leaders. You are the second person besides the nominator to claim this is a soapbox, yet it fails to meet the description in WP:SOAPBOX. Would you explain your reasoning? What "point of view" is this list promoting? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "opinion piece" and "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise." It's promoting the point of view that Muhammad was a killer. Let's not pretend that this isn't obvious. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious to me. Muhammad was a political and military leader. Such leaders throughout history have ordered assassinations and such, including the current U.S. president, as I pointed out in my initial comment. That's hardly a controversial point to make. The perception that it "promotes" the documented facts seems like a dubious rationale for deletion.

Furthermore, considering the individuals on this list who have their own Wikipedia articles, the topic may indeed be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cursory glance reveals 5 individuals on the list who are notable enough to have their own articles and who were pardoned, not killed. Notable enough to create a List of people saved by Muhammad, perhaps ?! Unflavoured (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create a [[List of people saved by Muhammad]? However, we must realize that the use of assassination has been very important throughout the history of Arabia and Islamic expansion. The very word "assassin" has Arabic roots. I'm having a hard time seeing why this is so controversial. ~~Walid al-Hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.162.28 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 24.62.162.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. A lot of reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.120.224 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 86.170.120.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So? As I said in the deletion argument, even if all the sources were excellent, this is still not a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sort of list nearly always ends up as original research and its difficult to see how it avoids a POV perception. Sourcing on this will always be dubious and material lacks context --Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so long as we stick to reliable sources and to the subject, then I see no problem. Snowded's argument that this could attract original research is true of any article. If we follow this logic, we should delete all famous biographies because they demonstrably attract vandals. In theory, Wikipedia doesn't work for this reason. Fortunately, Wikipedia works just fine in practice.

As far as POV goes, this article simply lists facts and sourced details and has no POV. Indeed, Muslims study Muhammad in great detail because he serves as an example of Godly behavior (though acknowledged as not perfect). Ignoring any aspect of Muhammad's life reflects a strong POV rather than the other way around. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

"Sourced largely to primary religious texts " false, there are 100+ secondary sources on that article, from different diverse publishers and authors of different religions (but mainly Muslims). I just added more. Some of which are:
- Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Ismaʼil R. Al-Faruqi, The life of Muḥammad: Volume 1976, Part 2, p. 223.
- Montgomery Watt, W.. "Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam
- Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. p. 13. ISBN 0827601166
- Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 126, ISBN 9780806138602
- De Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad, Darussalam, A Biography of the Prophet of Islam (Vol 1 & 2), p. 433.
- Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Islamic Book Trust (1994), The Life of Muhammad, p.354
"taking a couple of comprehensive biographies of Muhammad and making a list of every time he ordered someone to be killed"
- Maybe it would be a better idea if i named them "assassinations". As assassinations are more notable
"check out some of what the creator considers to be Muhammad "supporting" the killing...amusingly, it contains a couple of instances of Muhammad telling his followers not to kill the person", give me 1 example. I cant think of any, except maybe the "blind jew" whose case is different.
"It's promoting the point of view that Muhammad was a killer", so in other words. I cant create an article about Muhammad if it shows something which maybe be negative, even if it has reliable sources???? I am not pushing an agenda. I just want to contribute to the project.--Irvinga04 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wahshi pardoned, not killed. Abu Sufyan pardoned, not killed. Hind bint Utbah pardoned, not killed. Ikrimah pardoned, not killed. Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy pardoned, not killed. Unflavoured (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that would be justification for trimming the article, not deleting it. I note also that the creator has just made several improvements to the sourcing today. This is clearly a work in progress, so a deletion discussion may be premature, as I indicated earlier. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming !? If we took out people killed during/directly after battles, and people who were pardoned, there would be something like ~15 people left out of the current 43. Unflavoured (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. This list is about the people Muhammad ordered killed, so technically it can include those he ordered killed but pardoned

2. You claim that only 15 articles would be left if you removed the ones who pardoned. Although anyone who checks the article knows that is not true

3. Some of those who were pardoned have "conflicting reports" on whether they were pardoned. I pressed ctrl + f, i see only 10 where possibly :::::pardoned. 3 of those 10 are said to have been killed by other sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvinga04 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that contributors to this AfD may have been canvassed through a non-neutral notification of the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese is referring to commentary about this article that occurred before this AfD even existed, therefore the allegation of "canvassing" has no merit. See Talk:Muhammad#Killings of Muhammad for details. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- I think Amatulić had covered most of the reason in the first entry. This simply appears to be a case of hurt feelings. Wikipedia is not meant to be partial to any particular religion. Muhammad should be viewed as any other historical figure. He was a military leader, even the religious view of him agrees with this. This list, and similar ones for other military leaders, would be a great addition to the site. ~ MrSantaClaws (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — MrSantaClaws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Care to address the deletion rationale? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- He was a military and political leader. The assassinations listed are very important to the history of Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.162.28 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to address the deletion rationale? (Or explain why the many names on this list that aren't assassinations are "important"?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't aware there was a rationale for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ~~ Walid al-Hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.162.28 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Next time, try reading what the nominator writes, eh? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I read it all right. It's just that your rationale for deletion doesn't make any sense. 24.62.162.28 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unflavoured is right - this opens the door to 'List of killings by God', 'List of kilings by President/General Whatshisname', etc. It's here to promote a POV and it is going to be seen as an attack piece (I see it that way). Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can sort of see how it might be seen as POV. But how an article might be perceived isn't really relevant. That argument is a slippery slope fallacy. As I said before, I hardly think it's controversial to list assassinations ordered by a political/military leader. That has been the perogative of all leaders since recorded human history began. So what? The main issue to be considered here, I think, is "how is the article useful or encyclopedic?" I think it is, and explained why. Others may disagree. That's why we're here in this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if there were a list of assassinations ordered by a political/military leader, then we could talk about it, but this is a messy pile of, among other things, deaths in battle, executions for lawbreakers and prisoners of war, and cases where someone requested permission to kill the person and Muhammad gave it, as well as far more cases than I initially noticed of people that Muhammad specifically said not to kill and people who apparently died in their beds of old age. This is not salvageable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to renaming this article to Assassinations ordered by Muhammad and revising the article appropriately, provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short. Assasination, as others pointed out, is a notable aspect of Arabian history, and this article shows one piece of that. Entries in the list should be retained where sources disagree, and the sources shouldn't be cherry picked to support one view or another. I'll point out that in Muhammad's position as a leader, giving permission to kill someone isn't fundamentally different from giving the order. Simply asserting "this is not salvageable" doesn't make it so. As far as I can tell, it is salvageable, this discussion should have taken place on the article talk page, and this deletion discussion is premature. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short" - that's a big caveat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep : see no logical reason to remove all references are given content can be confired and validated — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGAREN (talk • contribs) — BONGAREN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How about addressing the deletion rationale? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. If sourcing is an issue, improve them. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (Struck - block evading sock. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a source somewhere that indicates that "killings of Muhammad" is a topic? If not, we don't just wait around for someone to find one. If sources don't discuss it, it's not a topic, and pulling together material from other sources to try to create a topic that doesn't exist is original synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A thickly footnoted POV extravaganza. The list contains killings that Muhammad personally ordered and ones he only supported. 1300 years ago and we know he did this, rrrrrright. Carrite (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So by your reasoning, any article on, say Roman history, is POV because that stuff happened more than 2000 years ago? 24.62.162.28 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One couldn't even properly source out a piece called People that George W. Bush didn't like, let alone a purported list of killings "endorsed" 1300 years ago. The topic, including "approvals" (no doubt as a POV-driven effort to swell the list), is overly broad and unscholarly. Amatulic, above, has the right idea: "I wouldn't object to renaming this article to Assassinations ordered by Muhammad and revising the article appropriately, provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short." Carrite (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would face the same problem in that no one has even tried to provide a source about assassinations ordered by Muhammad, instead choosing to cherry-pick incidents from biographies. Also that, as I said to Amatulic, "provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short" is a big caveat - I cut its size by a quarter just by removing people who were not killed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nominator - User:Roscelese, and as per User:Snowded and User:Dougweller's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not give a convincing argument as to why this list, among possible lists, should be on Wikipedia, as several earlier people have noted. The accuracy is not impressive (several people on the list were not in fact killed). Francis Bond (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list does not promote a particular point of view, is not given undue weight, is not violating good faith, or any of the other presumptions asserted by those who are voting for deletion. This is not a controversial topic and is very straight-forward to gather the facts about it. 71.207.217.11 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2011 (CDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.217.11 (talk) — 71.207.217.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: Please see the previous attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad and assassinations (which was created using a sock-puppet account) and the related ANI here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve if required, don't really want to see anything that could be perceived as religious censorship on Wikipedia Hideki (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather a cop-out - would you rather see Wikipedia used as a tool of religious hatred and xenophobia? How about actually addressing the deletion rationale? This is not a topic - sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad," and cherry-picking events from biographies of Muhammad in an obvious attempt to make a political point will not magically create a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether historical or scripture, we cannot deny the existence of those claims. I write on the Hebrew wikipedia: User:פרה It'll be nice to translate this article into the Hebrew Wiki. פרה (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — פרה (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Putting aside the fact that we can actually deny that some of these people were killed (I just had to remove more than ten entries from the list in question)...so? "But it's true!" has never been a good argument for a deletion discussion, because if sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad," it frankly doesn't matter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historical data that's well-referenced. Perhaps change the wording of the article name from "killings" to "assasinations." Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them aren't assassinations, and it seems like the list will be trivially short if the non-assassinations are removed. I just reduced the list size by a quarter by removing the people who weren't actually killed - what do you think it'll look like if we also take out the ones who were killed in battle, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is not an article; it is a list. At best, if any of the alledged victims have articles about them, they could be tagged with a CATEGORY: Killed by Muhammad. It all fairness, then similar categories should be created for the vixtims of other high-profile personalities or institutions - CATEGORY: Killed by Torquemada, CATEGORY: Killed by French revolutionaries, etc. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it's not considered a topic. A religious or political figure is usually accountable of assassinations and murder when it's specifically done to get higher authority..etc. However, when he has a military role, it's a POV to isolate the treaty-violations and details about the death when it's a common reaction at the time. There's no such topic for a military figure, and most of the list is misusing sources and taking texture out-of context. Each item belongs in separate articles, so I don't see a reason to make a list here. The result, based on Synthesizing selective material, automatically concludes that he's a figure that enjoys killing (when most reasons are hidden). I can fill each description with violation tags that can't be fixed, but it ain't worth the time. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 02:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A case of an editor using WP:IDONTLIKEIT hidden beneath weak, faulty logic. Religious books are used as sources in plenty of articles, and for this particular one there are other reputable sources. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia. Just because the topic makes some people uncomfortable, is no reason to acquiesce and hide factual information. Trying to influence admins by smearing editors who vote to *keep* as 'single purpose accounts' and possible stooges of an anti-Muslim website is a well known tactic advocated by those with little ammo to debate with. I resent the implication. Keep it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is well-sourced encyclopediadic content on the topic of a major world religion. It is no less important than, say, list of Apostle Paul's visits to Jerusalem, History of Christian Theology, or the list of Crusades at the page, Crusades. Bisqwit (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be no reason to delete the article. It is informative, WP:NPOV and well-sourced, conforming well to wikipedia standards. Moreover, other such lists exist on Wikipedia, like List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War or Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists for example. I agree with Amatulić on most of his points - the article can be improved, but shouldn't be removed. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — 79.183.30.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy on no original research/no original synthesis? No sources have written about "killings of Muhammad" - this is a list of cherrypicked incidents from biographies. Imagine for a moment that no books exist on Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution, and that we only have biographies and Civil War histories to tell us about things like Ex parte Merryman - wouldn't you agree that a "List of constitutional violations of Abraham Lincoln," which not only included suspension of habeas corpus and the like but also times when Lincoln wrote in his diary that he disagreed with a certain principle, times when he insisted on upholding the constitution, and times when he knew someone who had violated a constitutional principle. That's what we've got here - each incident may be worth discussing, but to indiscriminately lump them together, along with a lot of irrelevant, misleading, or flat-out wrong information (as in this list), with the transparent aim of making a political point, is at best a WP:NOR violation if no sources have discussed the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of WP:NOR. I do not think reading a canonical hadith is considered original research. I also fail to see a difference between a Hadith and a Gospel. As to your other objections, they only mean the article's quality could be improved, with irrelevant/poorly supported by sources/flatly wrong entries removed. As to WP:SOAP - I do see how this particular collection of facts may stir up a heated debate, though theological, not political. But this is not a reason to remove a factually correct article. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI-I have a dynamic IP and no account. No wonder system finds "few or no other edits". 79.183.30.82 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading primary religious texts such as hadith does present an OR problem - that's why we have Template:Religious text primary. Again, can you provide a source that discusses the ostensible topic of the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search reveals over 4 million results on "killings by prophet muhammad". Most of the hits are, of course, off topic completely or suffer from WP:Notability issues, but this shows the topic has been extensively discussed and researched. I could use other search terms, like "assasinations", with similar results. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being willfully mendacious, Roscelese. Any basic history of Arabia discusses the military career of Muhammad, and his strategy of targeted killings as a military and political tool. Muhammad's actions in this respect have been cited and analyzed in Islamic law as to what constitutes a lawful ruse de guerre and who constitutes a lawful combatant. Walid al-Hindi 24.62.162.28 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete unless reliable sources can be provided that show that the topic "Killings of Muhammad", as a whole, has been the subject of multiple, detailed discussions in reliable sources. That is our criteria for the notability of lists, and what separates a notable list from non-notable lists. To keep a list, we must show that the concept underlying this list is one that is already notable; we cannot fabricate our own lists by pulling together a bunch of individually notable things and creating a synthetic topic ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer above. The subject, at first glance, looks notable and has been discussed in multiple millions of places. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits mean nothing as far as we are concerned. We need reliable sources. If there are so many, feel free to comb through them looking for reliable ones; I'm not convinced you'll actually find any. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese's argument above, that we need reliable sources that discuss this topic as presented (a list), seems bogus to me. Roscelese's argument stretches WP:SYN to the breaking point and reveals a lack of understanding of Arabic history and historical military leaders. Assassination is a well-known topic in that context. If you look at our featured list articles you'll find a few that don't necessarily have sources describing the list topic but describe individual items in the list. Why delete the article if it can be improved?

Furthermore, it took me all of 90 seconds to find this source:

"...assassination was becoming Muhammad's primary tool of influencing events..."

""Weakened militarily, Muhammad shifted the struggle to political grounds using assassination as a means to inflict violence."

...and several more examples, more than trivial mentions.

Gabriel, Richard A (2007). Muhammad: Islam's First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2.

Reliable sources for this should be abundant, and should put this silly argument to rest. Roscelese has a valid point about sources, but that point is really an argument for improvement, not deletion. This deletion nomination should be withdrawn if the only remaining reason to delete is about WP:SYN. That's an invalid argument according to sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have added this source to the article, in the "Further reading" section. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Got any more sources, since notability of a topic requires multiple sources? We do not generally base articles on work by one person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty more, just scanning google books. Another example, discussing whether Muhammad had people "put to death" versus "assassinated". Calcutta review, Volumes 56-57 By University of Calcutta.[23] Took me another 2 minutes to find. You don't seem to understand that we don't delete an article because the article lacks sources, we delete it if there are no sources. The sources are easy to find, as I demonstrated. As stated by others, assassination is an integral part of Arabian history. Rather than create further WP:POINTy debates because you object to the topic, why not see if the article can be improved? This is a WP:DEADHORSE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rescue to be done here because this is not a topic. It is, as it has been since the beginning, a WP:SOAPy collection of cherrypicked incidents from sources of varying reliability. The Calcutta Review article has a few things going against it, but the most relevant one is that it's an anti-Muslim tract and makes no secret of that fact. Sourcing ostensibly historical articles to Islamophobic attack pieces is not generally a good idea. (And if this was the best you could come up with, I'm really doubting that sources are "easy to find.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people have explained to you that it is a topic. Sources I have found clearly indicate that it is a topic. Anyone familiar with Arabian history would know that it is a topic. I'm busy at work today earning a living, so I apologize if the sources I took 3 minutes out of my busy day to find don't meet your standards; that issue should be taken up on WP:RSN, not here. Your characterization of one source as "anti-Muslim" doesn't have any bearing on whether it qualifies as verifiable and reliable; a source need not be neutral to qualify. The point is that sources exist, and we don't delete articles if sources exist. This is still a WP:DEADHORSE, so why keep flogging it? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another by Maxime Rodinson: "Assassination had relieved [Muhammad] of the problem of a number of influential enemies."[24] From Muhammad: prophet of Islam; apparently this book is regarded as a key work of scholarship on the topic of Islam. I'm sure I could go on, but I really don't have time today. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goody, one sentence taken from a paragraph that doesn't discuss the subject! That certainly alleviates my concerns about this material being cherry-picked! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context given, it further establishes that it's a topic. It's mentioned more than once. I suspect no amount of sourcing will satisfy you. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT as me and others have repeatedly pointed out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, implying that it's a topic but the author forgot to talk about it is a wonderful conclusion. We can also look at WP:ILIKEIT, too. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Purge killings not actually performed by Muhammad. per WP:SYNTH / WP:SOAPBOX. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The killings which never took place, either because the person escaped or Muhammad pardoned them, have already been removed by Roscolese. Though i think they should have been kept in the article, maybe in an "Attempted killings" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estoves (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR Merge with main article. Not WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR because it's a list (see Amatulić vote) . Not WP:SOAPBOX Concentration of facts does not imply an agenda if sources view and discuss it in such a fashion (see also non-article sources ITT), lists by their nature concentrate facts and higher test standards must be applied. Both arguments against the sources do not hold water ("primary religious texts and other outdated scholarship" is factually untrue and would be irrelevant if it was, the events took place 1500 years ago; "wouldn't pass muster even if all the sources were excellent and recent" implies what it argues against.) Not WP:UNDUE because there are no alternate opinions if the list answers the criterion by which it is arranged. Lack of WP precedent is factually untrue, see for example List of postal killings or List of killings and massacres in the British Mandate for Palestine to which same argument can be applied. However recommend to improve by specification (e.g. "List of notable killings authorized by Muhammad" etc) and attentive verification of sources. Unfortunately a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zombiestan (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Zombiestan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, not to use. Why would you assume that the existence of List of postal killings validates the existence of this article? I just nominated it for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. It's disruptive here, as well as there. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good list. Now that I know it exists, why shouldn't I nominate it for deletion? Am I now barred from nominating it for deletion because it was mentioned here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in other people's mouths now? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason the list of massacres in Mandate Palestine is pertinent under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exception, it is a list of events and sources seem to treat it as such and its size may warrant a separate article. Besides, this is not my main, or strongest argument, neither is it counter to any one you listed as a cause for AfD. Tagging me with SaP despite this account being active since 2008 only reinforces my view WP:IDONTLIKEIT Zombiestan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. If it's referenced well, it should be kept. And my IP address was assigned by DHCP server. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.119.94.104 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — 175.119.94.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Except it isn't well-referenced. The sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad" - they discuss the life of Muhammad, and cherry-picking incidents from said life to build a soapbox to stand on is a violation of WP:SYNTH. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False assertion. See the Muir reference. It goes into significant detail about various assassinations. You are stretching WP:SYN to the breaking point. A list article need not have sources that discuss the topic of the list, if there is enough information in sources to compile a list that is informative, as this one is. There are some examples of this in our featured lists. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, an explicitly anti-Muslim tract about how Muslims really like killing people is a poor source. It wouldn't be an appropriate source if it were posted on JihadWatch today, and it's not more appropriate because it was published in the nineteenth century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its referenced well. I agree with Amatulics reasoning as well as Zombiestan. Furthermore, the claim that because its 1500 years old and uses old historical sources. Does defeat the argument proposed. As you need old sources for something that happened 1500 years ago. But thats not the point, this article uses an enormous amount of secondary sources--Estoves (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Estoves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you planning on addressing the deletion rationale at any point, viz., that this is synthesis of events from sources that aren't about killings of Muhammad? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on addressing the fact that all of the deletion rationales, including the synthesis argument, have already been addressed by me and others? Simply asserting over and over that your rationale hasn't been addressed doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed those arguments, poor as they are, but just keep on sticking your fingers in your ears. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil please. If you and another editor can't convince each other then sit back and let the AfD takes its course. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Give editors a chance to improve the article or wrap the information in to another article. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? Improve how, when the necessary reliable sources discussing the topic of the article are absent? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Well referenced source. But it would be better to merge it into / under more detailed article about either Muhammad or history of Arabia. Krzysztof Wilczynski22:25, 8 September 2011 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.74.74 (talk) — 195.110.74.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you clarify which option you'd prefer, and which article you believe it should be merged to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and sourced list. Maybe rename to "killings by Muhammad"? Biophys (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading the deletion arguments and responding to them. In particular, "It's interesting" is an argument to avoid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right. It is useful for someone who is interested in Muhammad biography and ideas. A reader would learn (from the facts of his biography) that he advocated killings, unlike Jesus, Ghandi or Lev Tolstoi. That's interesting. Biophys (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem. With the flawed criteria for inclusion, this article implies that he advocated killings, when in truth many of those included in the list were actually pardoned, not killed. Jesus and Ghandi are not military leaders. Try Moses. Unflavoured (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion to change the of into by. Bisqwit (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That addresses exactly zero of the problems raised with this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIs sourced and might provide useful information Sam 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will never cease to amaze me that people think WP:ITSUSEFUL is a good argument rather than a bad argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the policy tells that argument of the kind "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." is a good argument. Yes, it does. Biophys (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per strong policy-based reasons provided by Amatulić, Rklawton, and others. It's been established that the material is notable and reliably sourced, so there is no real question here. Doc Tropics 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This list is the result of synthesis. I think the question is really one of notability. The list makes as much sense as listing all of the notable Nazis killed by the 3rd US Army and attributing them to Patton. Any killings of notable people, or killings that are notable in and of themselves can be merged into the Muhammad article. Sperril (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam might be reasonable, except these articles are already big. Hence it makes more sense keeping such supplementary lists separately per readability reasons. Biophys (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuriakin Zeng

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

Nothing here that asserts notability per WP:BIO in this vanity article. JaGa^talk 05:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While a recipient of several awards, none of them appear to be of the caliber to establish notability. Also, there is a paucity of reliable sources. Moogwrench (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farang

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

the English language Wikipedia is not a Thai etymological dictionary for random words, NN Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this is a WP:DICT or random word; the article contains more than etymology and notability seems to be established by G-Hits (and 8 interwikis). There are other similiar words in other languages that are far too well-known to be deleted such as the Spanish/Portuguese word Gringo and the Japanese Gaijin. Here are a few more from List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures: Ang mo, Gweilo, Laowai, Barang (Khmer word), Bule, Pākehā, Palagi, Mzungu, Toubab. jonkerz ♠ 09:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to WP:DICT articles are supposed to be about things not words. Although interesting this article is only a extra-long (and well-written) discussion of the origin, meaning, and use of one word.Borock (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is not randomness but the general interest in the important topic of inter-racial and inter-cultural relations that inspired the article, I say with some confidence but in disagreement with the nominator. Borock (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word "farang" has entered the English language in the sense of a non-Thai person. This well-referenced article also touches on Thai perceptions of non-Thai people and culture. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to write an article on Thai perceptions of non-Thai people, rather than just having an article touch on them. Borock (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "farang" has entered the English language"?!? No, it hasn't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "farang" may not be in every speaker's active vocabulary, but it is in mine, and is listed in the Concise Oxford [25] which I consider to be sufficient evidence that is now considered part of English. Ideally, looking for evidence such as this should be done before nomination, according to [WP:BEFORE]. I think the extended discussion makes this a suitable entry for Wikipedia, rather than Wiktionary. Francis Bond (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see also Pākehā for a similar article about a different word with the same meaning in the same context. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to My Scene#Movies. delete and redirect, no need to keep content as already covered Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Scene: Masquerade Madness

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

fails notability, is little more than a stub. SailorSonic

Delete: My sister had this DVD when she was younger. This is non-notable which isn't surprising since it was released in packages of My Scene dolls. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies where this one is already spoken in context to the other My Scene films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies. Grande (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endast

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

No indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable unsigned band. Article is unsourced and amounts to little more than a fluff-laden promotional piece, and no third-party hits on Google. Fails WP:BAND. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 15:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep Article is just a few days old. Ability to meet wp:notability looks like a possibility. Source-based notability appears the only possibility, right now has no sources suitable for that. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The exclaim.ca piece is good, and they seem to getting some attention, but not enough to meet notability yet. The usual caveats apply — frankie (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if we had other sources besides the exclaim source, I would say keep. The #6 place for iTunes Canada is impressive but insufficiently sourced. Moogwrench (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had a lot of work since this deletion nomination started. Discography and activity make this band notable. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discography and activity do not make any band notable. Independent coverage of the band and/or their albums and activity indicates notability. The coverage of Endast referenced in the article does not appear to rise above the independent blog level. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no charting; no playing to stadium crowds. fails WP:BAND Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boulou Ebanda de B'béri

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

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. According to Google Scholar, he hasn't been cited by anyone. There's simply no evidence of scholarly importance here. BlueonGray (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ??? My own look at the Google Scholar link above finds three pages of hits of this Academic being cited,[26] but I do not speak French. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Are you sure? Because this search shows 10 publications and zero citations.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, remove the word "author" from your search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But then we're not necessarily dealing with scholarly citations of his work. If we merely do a search on his name, and it shows up as part of a conference abstract or in the acknowledgements in a book, that's not a scholarly citation. Doing a Google search on scholarly works authored by the subject tells us not only how many scholarly pieces he has published, but also which pieces have been cited by whom. It does not appear that anyone has cited his work.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Seems that he is more than just an average college professor, and one who is making an impact within his field. We have him as 'Director of the Audiovisual Media Lab for the studies of Cultures and Societies' at University of Ottawa whose prizes and scholarships include the 2003 Van Horne Prize and the 2005 Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) New Initiative Scholarship, and whose publications appear in the journals Cultural Studies, CiNéMAS, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, Canadian Journal of Communication, Critical Arts, American Journal of Semiotics, and who is the author of Mapping Alternative Expressions of Blackness in Cinema (Germany, BASS 80, 2006), and the editor of Introduction to Media Studies: A Reader (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 2007) and Les "Cultural Studies" dans les mondes fraconphones, University of Ottawa Press (2010).[27]. WP:ACADEMICS cautions that "most of new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role. The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." And it also guides that we might consider "publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals," which this man appears to have.[28] And even though WP:BIO states "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources", we DO have secondary sources that can verify this fellow, his work, his 'ideas', and his influence.. Wikipedia does not expect a scholar to get the coverage as might a politician, athlete, or film star, and being cited is only a small portion of what editors are allowed to consider when determining notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Introduction to Media Studies was a textbook, not a monograph. It has since been discontinued and isn't even listed on the OUP website. Many academics start labs and centers, and many more publish in peer-reviewed journals. However, output is different from reception. There is no evidence of influence in his discipline: no influential piece of scholarship, no transformative idea or theory. For an associate professor to have not even one citation is rather surprising. There are graduate students who have made a bigger impact.--BlueonGray (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much published, zero cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I thought, given the lack of citations to his scholarly articles, and the description of him as a filmmaker in his article, that maybe WP:CREATIVE might be a better criterion than WP:PROF to look for notability. But I can't find any there either. Zero hits on Google news archive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I do agree that WP:AUTHOR would be more applicable, but Google News archive appears broken. I can input a specific known article date and source and it comes up empty. Sure wish Google would get the stick out of their corporate butt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "breaking" of my ability to use News Archives was due to my using IE7. Now udated to IE8, I find that Nice {French) reports him chosen as one of the jurors at the Pan African Film Festival at Cannes. The Chatham Daily News [29] has chosen to quote him in detail about the Promised Land Symposium. Things which do not usually happen to a non-notable professor, as apparently, and even if not cited by scholars, his expertise in his particular field is being sought out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' based on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: okay, the participation as a judge at Cannes does change things. He still doesn't appear to have had any scholarly impact. He's notable; just not for scholarly reasons.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. User:Dr. Blofeld has shown me as notable enough for Wikipedia, but not neccessarily for scholarly impact. Article will need cleanup and refocus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted this as the reference found above was a couple of days ago, and others who suggested deleting the article have not had time to discuss this. If they all change to "keep", I am happy to close this as a "keep", otherwise further discussion for a week might show a clear consensus one way or the otherPhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr Blofeld's reference lifts it over the threshold. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Sahin (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has yet to appear in a match in a WP:FPL. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no professional appearances, no significant coverage, does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 talk 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has yet make a fully pro appearance, and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. If kept the article should probably be moved to Emre Şahin (footballer). Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL as hasn't played fully pro yet. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can find no evidence that this player meets any of the relevant notability criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fiedler

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

This person appears to fail the notability guideline at WP:AUTHOR. His name gets some Google hits, primarily in connection with places the book is sold and some blogs, but I do not see any significant coverage in reliable sources as discussed at WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RSs which indicated notability. Moogwrench (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, looking through Gbooks and searching the web doesn't seem to find any reliable, third party sources to establish the notability of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 08:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. mentions are not the detailed couverage we need for an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computation and Neural Systems

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

Individual university courses are not usually considered notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, provisionally and without prejudice. A synopsis of the subjects covered in the class (i.e. computation and neural systems) may well be a valuable article, and may be redundant to existing articles; I have not looked. A history of how the class came to be taught is unlikely at best to be a major subject of discussion in independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge if it were better sourced, probably Artificial intelligence or Artificial neural network. There is also Bio-inspired computing but it also not well cited. Also of course California Institute of Technology which mentions it (without a link) as just one in a list of undergraduate programs. Note it is not a single "class" (which is how "course" is often meant) but an academic program. But still, would need to show general notability to remain stand-alone, with an independent source saying something about it, more than it existing. No citations at all, just link to its own web site and others inline. Would also observe the user Perona seems a single purpose account. Only edits related to this article are seen in the history. One was adding a link to the graduate program section of Caltech's article. But that was reverted without comment, perhaps because it was sourced to the 2011 registrar newsletter which nowhere I could find mentions this program. The article states (without citation) that "Pietro Perona" is an "executive officer" of the program. Actually from its web page, it might be more involved in Computational neuroscience? I am not an expert in any of these fields. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - university courses are not notable, and there is no attempt to establish notability in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about a class, it's about an organization. Caltech's CNS program was the first of its kind, I believe, and has great historical importance, with members like Carver Mead and J. J. Hopfield, among others. I think the article should be renamed as Computation and Neural Systems program (Cal Tech), but in any case there is plenty of reason for it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to something like Caltech Computation and Neural Systems program. This is a kin to an article like MIT Media Lab. To be clear it's an article about an entire program of study and not just a single course. While there is no specific notability criteria here we can look at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as a guide. The program was associated with the launch of several important conferences. The program directors are all notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Broken Segue 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a longstanding program/department at Caltech. --Kvng (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating the existence of the program. But just because it had notable alumni does not make it notable. Programs at Stanford, CMU, UC-Berkeley etc. also had notable alumni so this is not that unusual. Many of them are "longstanding" moreso than this one. The MIT Media Lab has been covered in both local and national press (although its article also needs better citations). Every academic program is "important" or "historic" to the people in it. What Wikipedia guidelines say is needed is for someone outside the program to write about it. I see since my comment an editor anonymously added some citations to books and articles written by the people in it. This is not the same, unless they articles are actually about the program in the article (or is the article supposed to be about the field in general, vs. the prgram at Caltech? If so, it would be in lower case). W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move as suggested above. The Caltech CNS programme has had some very notable participants and achievements, and there are at least a few outside sources mentioning it; one of the more interesting being Romy Wyllie (Caltech's Architectural Heritage: From Spanish tile to modern stone, Balcony Press, 2000), discussing the use of analog integrated circuit patterns as an architectural motif. 202.124.73.24 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 22:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Shesh

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

This person does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. A GNews search turns up no hits, and a GBooks search turns up trivial listings only. Of the references in the article, the The Hindu article provides some coverage of the subject but I have concerns about its verifiability as the article does not list an author. In any case, the article says little more about the subject than that he won a local literary award. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the author has been including google.in links on his user page indicates he's not found any evidence of his own notability either. Despite efforts to clean up the copyvio and peacock issues with this article it still looks like a vanity piece for a non-notable poet. His civil service career shows no evidence of notability either. Bazj (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Searching for anything that would help the article meet that criteria was not successful. - Sudo Ghost 08:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the subject himself (author of the article) can't find any evidence of his own notability, and we cannot, then the case is pretty conclusively made. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasoning offered by Bazj and Orangemike: If the highly-involved subject of the article can't find anything to establish notability, it's not surprising that nobody else can either. I looked and found nothing. Msnicki (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Phil Bridger below. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above --ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would take issue with the nominator's assertion that the award covered by The Hindu is local. It is open to all authors from Rajasthan, which has a larger population than the United Kingdom. Would we characterise a national UK award as local? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally consider a literary award open only to residents of a single state as local. While obviously and as you pointed out some states are more populous than other countries, the cultural significance of an award does not necessarily depend solely on the number of people theoretically eligible. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you base an assessment of the cultural significance of such an award on? India is far from a monocultural country. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this in the nomination because the article did not say much of substance about Shesh, and the award was local, an assessment that you take issue with. If you would like to discuss literary awards in general or this particular award in more depth, I would love to do so but this is probably not the correct forum. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of "local" would exclude anything that isn't universe-wide, so is not useful for our purposes. This is the precise forum where this needs to be discussed, because the notability of the subject depends on whether this is "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you are wanting to discuss whether this award meets WP:ANYBIO then this is the correct forum, though I do not understand why you did not mention that in your first post and instead took issue with the term "local" (really, def #3 in MW does not usefully apply?). In my opinion this award clearly does not meet the intent or scope covered in WP:ANYBIO. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. The subject has received widespread coverage in reliable sources for winning a major literary award:[30][31][32][33]. There's also this article in another reliable source describing him as "a distinguished poet, art-critic and columnist". We have enough sources in the Roman alphabet, which is not Shesh's native script, to establish notability, so I'm sure that plenty more could be found in Devanagari. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't meet criteria number 1. The award is one of three given by this minor group, and doesn't appear to be well known or particularly notable. Simply typing 'Bihari Puraskar' into google only gives minor news articles that duplicate press releases (and less than 5,000 results), Google News shows absolutely nothing, and there is nothing else to demonstrate that the award is well known or significant, therefore the award cannot be said to be a "a well-known and significant award or honor", thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - Sudo Ghost 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Google News search only covers the last month. I have shown that several reliable sources specifically covered Hemnat Shesh's receipt of this award. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not what is being discussed. It is covered that he received the award, and that is not being questioned. The award itself, however, is neither significant, nor is it well known, thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - Sudo Ghost 22:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Notability is never about a WP:BIGNUMBER or about rarity. It's the same principle in judging the significance of an award. It's immaterial that only one of these awards is given out to all of India (or even to the entire world) unless you can establish that reliable sources WP:RS consider it significant, which takes more than routine coverage. Then maybe you could get a consensus (which doesn't exist now) that anyone who wins that award should be considered per se notable. Msnicki (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further this, I am aware of WP:GHITS, but in this case, I am not questioning the notability of an article, but how well known something is, which a Google test is well suited for. A well known award would not have less than 4,000 results. Typing in random Wikipedia usernames returns more results than that, and these usernames aren't "well known". - Sudo Ghost 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination and arguments being made for its deletion are good example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias prevalent on wikipedia.He is a well known author and a civil servant- an uncommon combination. He got Bihari Puraskar a prestigeous award for Rajasthani authors counts nothing for these deletionists .Shyamsunder (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been demonstrated that he is a well known author, and fails WP:AUTHOR. The award he won is not well-known nor is it significant, failing WP:ANYBIO, as per above. If he does meet any of Wikipedia's criteria, which does he meet? Simply being an author and civil servant is not sufficient if he is not notable for either. Also, accusing those that argue for the deletion of the article of bias against Indian culture without any proof is a personal attack that has no merit whatsoever, and is not addressing the substance of this discussion, that the article's subject is not notable, nor have you demonstrated otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shyamsunder, creating an article (Bihari Puraskar) just to support your view is not good policy. I am also from India, and I don't see any kind of bias towards the country or the people. And mentioning that in an AfD discussion might even invalidate your vote. Also, civil servants have been good authors too - Raju Narayana Swamy for instance. I completely agree with SudoGhost here. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author gets coverage from top and reputed Indian newspapers like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and The Times of India. These papers have readership in the millions. And we aren't even considering the amount of coverage he gets in local Indian languages. It's a no-brainer to me to keep this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are minor mentions that are for a single event, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. - Sudo Ghost 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear autobio. I don't how the award Bihari Puraskar is considered notable. Firstly, it is given to people who write only in Rajasthani which is not a major language in India (in the article it states that it is spoken by over 80 million people, but the 2001 census data says otherwise). Secondly, only articles about this individual winning the award seem to come out of Google/Yahoo searches. I guess the media coverage about the award has more to do with an IAS officer receiving it. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references from The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran (all newspapers with a daily circulation of more than a million and well established editorial processes) as well as others from Naiduniya that are now included in the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. There are also more Hindi sources out there and Google cache shows me one from The Times of India but the link does not go through. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are minor mentions of a single event, failing WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. - Sudo Ghost 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is that four newspapers (ignoring Times of India as I can't get through the link), each of which has a circulation greater than the NYT and Washington Post put together, will cover a non-notable person receiving a non-notable award? That really would be the crux of the argument against meeting WP:ANYBIO #1. And BLP1E is a non-starter here. The Naiduniya article is about another award, the other Hindi sources from (Rajasthan Patrika) are about his career postings. But it appears that this AfD is a moving target -- first it's the verifiability/reliability of The Hindu, then it's a "local award" when ~ 60 to 70 million people are eligible for the award, then the award fails Anybio, now it's BLP1E. BLP1E exists to protect private individuals, someone who has published over 20 books under his name, who is the District collector for a territory with a population of over 700,000 people is not a private individual. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read the rest of the AfD, it has been demonstrated that this article does not meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Stop assuming that those reasoning that the article is not notable are out to "get" the article. Has it ever occurred to you that the article might just be not notable? - Sudo Ghost 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occurred to you that the subject might be notable? —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had. Then I read the article and assessed it based on Wikipedia's criteria on notability, and found that it did not meet that criteria. I'm interested, however, in where you get the idea that WP:BLP1E only applies to "private individuals". I find it highly unlikely that being an author that fails WP:AUTHOR somehow excludes the individual from having to meet WP:BLP1E, and being a "District collector" does not convey notability to the subject in any way, nor does it exclude the individual from having to meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability. - Sudo Ghost 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any point in us continuing this discussion, it doesn't look like I'm going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me -- I've already made my argument as to why he meets ANYBIO etc etc. So, I'm leaving this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has received coverage in at least five reliable sources (simply not naming an author doesn't make a source unreliable, as that's the standard practise of many high-quality sources with strong editorial processes, such as the BBC or the Times of Malta). While many of them are about a single award win, two cover the rest of his career instead. BLP1E as currently written applies only when the person is covered only in the context of the event and is otherwise low-profile, as SudoGhost's quote above makes clear, so the additional sources not about the award mean that this isn't a concern. And since when was a 600-word article entirely about a person a "minor mention"?! Never mind whether or not the award win satisfies ANYBIO (I would suggest that by itself it probably doesn't), this is more than enough to meet the fundamental standards of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources used in the article are not about that single event? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see one. - Sudo Ghost 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This English source and this Hindi one (assuming Google Translate hasn't messed up terribly - does anyone here speak Hindi so we can check?) are about a different award that he won. Although both are fairly brief mentions and wouldn't establish notability by themselves, I think they dispel the idea that he's only covered in the context of one award, which is enough to pass BLP1E as I'm reading it. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. As I mentioned above, the Naiduniya source is about a different award -- Ghashiram Varma (sp?) award which is the third such award that he has coverage for in online sources. We also have a couple more from Rajasthan Patrika that list his postings as civil service officer in addition to a brief profile for the Jaipur Literary Festival -- [34]. While online archives for the English dailies are available since about early 2000, the Hindi dailies have only been online for a couple of years and don't have a proper archive either. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one isn't significant coverage, his name is mentioned briefly in one sentence. While WP:BLP1E doesn't say so, WP:1E says that people that are notable for only one event (as this article's subject seems to be) should not have their own article, but should be mentioned in the award's article instead (assuming that article is found to be notable). As to the second source, Google translate does anything but help, trying to decipher that translation literally gave me a headache, and now I have to step away from the computer for a bit. :\ - Sudo Ghost 12:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it do that? - Sudo Ghost 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scare A Thon

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

Non-notable programming block, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons listed above. Very poorly written, not in an "encyclopaedic" tone. Grande (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. The only mention I could find of the subject was in various "press release"-type stories (clearly not independent of the subject), which (contradicting the article, BTW) said the 2005 event was the second annual Nicktoons "Scare-A-Thon". I acknowledge that WP:TVSHOW says that "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on ... a single cable television network with a national or regional audience", but it also says that "a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage". So, the definitive criterion is still significant coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources — and I can't find such for this subject. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Toonami. Courcelles 22:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami: The Intruder

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

Non-notable short. Found no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toonami#Total Immersion Events. Unfortunately, doesn't appear notable enough for its own article, I found sources but none I'm comfortable calling "reliable". However, the Toonami article mentions this in its Total Immersion Events section, so I think redirecting it to there would be best. - Sudo Ghost 08:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SudoGhost. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 22:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring clay animation

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

Non-notable criteiron. Most of these aren't even films but rather TV shorts or shows. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWere they recorded on motion picture film via stop-motion animation? Then they are clearly "films." If they were originally recorded on videotape or on a computer, then they would not be, unless later converted to motion picture film. A film which was made for broadcast on TV is still a film, even if short. What is the distinction between a notable and a nonnotable criterion? Edison (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list can never be complete, anyway, and serves little purpose, I agree with that. However, WP:NOTPAPER, so it doesn't hurt to keep it. If a such list were included in a "proper" article, I'd suggest removing it to its own page, as is the case, here. This goes for many other lists-in-articles, too... --Janke | Talk 05:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep claymation is a specific genre, there are plenty of notable an verifiable films here, and more than half of these entries seem to be themselves notable films. Trimming and sourcing may be in order, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the list such that deletion is a reasonable option. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could use a better name -- not sure if all of these are clay animation vs. other types of stop motion or film vs. video -- but we can deal with that without deleting. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Web Applications. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web app

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

Duplication of content known as Rich Internet applications Object404 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter contained in Web app is already defined and known as Rich Internet applications. Web app should be made to redirect to Web Applications instead. -Object404 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is common sense. I can't believe I edited that article several times without noticing this. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web application. This is a not-as-good duplicate. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above with WP:SNOW -- samj _in ^out 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term 'web app' is primarily being used for downloadable HTML5 apps used to circumvent Apple's app store. All references given in the article use the term 'web app' in this sense, none use 'rich internet application'. The term 'rich internet application' seems to have been invented for flash games and such, without any concept of offline use. The introduction of that article mentions "Adobe Flash, JavaFX, and Microsoft Silverlight" as major platforms, neither of which has anything to do with web apps as currently understood. The article 'rich internet application' doesn't even mention the basic enabling technology of web apps, namely HTML5's offline storage capabilities, which make web apps almost functionally equivalent to iOS apps. In short, the two articles talk about different concepts; redirecting would not aid our readers. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the term, "web app", all the time. But this is the first time I've heard it ever used for "downloadable HTML5 apps used to circumvent Apple's app store". If your claim that this was the primary use for the term appeared in an article, you'd need some pretty good citations to make me believe it. It's definitely not the way Apple uses the term. Msnicki (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In their description of web apps linked from your link, of course Apple leaves out the part "used to circumvent Apple's app store", which is however contained in (all?) the references listed in the current article. Otherwise Apple uses the term as I do: some app that you install on your iphone and that came from the web, not from the app store. The link doesn't mention HTML5 as it's directed at users, not developers. Their technical info mentioning HTML5 and web storage is here. There is hardly any overlap between this concept of "web app" and the material covered in Rich Internet application; the claim of the nominator has not been supported sufficiently. Since the concept of 'web application' is much broader and covers pretty much any interactive web page, redirecting the current page to 'web application' would require adding a specific section about web apps to that article. The usefulness of this eludes me. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree and wait for the consensus. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, though it needs to be expanded not just to reference Apple, but Android as well. It is clear from the sources that the term "Web app" is being used to denote a subset of Web applications that are distinctly and notably meant to replace native mobile apps. I don't see any of the content currently in the Web app article fully replicated or covered in Rich Internet application or the like, so if you want to propose a merge that's okay, but a simple delete and redirect would lose valuable, cited content. Steven Walling • talk 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear from what??? Do you have a source that says web apps are something different than web applications? Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said above again. Web apps is a nascent term for a subset of Web applications which function like native mobile apps. "App" -- as in "there's an app for that" -- has a special meaning beyond just any software application. Thus a Web app is an app which lives on the Web, not just any rich Internet application. As for sources, there are plenty in the article, and the definition of what a Web app is from Apple is another example, linked above. Steven Walling • talk 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something more persuasive than repetitive assertion. I don't think the sources offered support the claim you're making. Msnicki (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already stated above. Repetitively badgering reasonable arguments with the same responses does no good either. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I'm merely asking if you can point to even one source that supports your claim that a web app is different than a web application, that this is the one case where app isn't just short for application like it is everywhere else in the world of software. Complaining that's badgering rather simply producing the source tells me everything I need to know. Thanks. Msnicki (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already multiple sources both in the article and presented here which use the term in the context and with the meaning that the article ascribes to it. You choosing to ignore the validity of the several perfectly valid sources already present is not my problem. Steven Walling • talk 15:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? Which one does such a thing? informationweek.com and Zdnet treat them as synonimous. ConceivablyTech talks about Flash apps. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page Web app has been used by too many groups to mean too many different things to be anything but a disambiguation page for pages with clear meaning. WebApp is also a live registered trademark in the US (registered to someone I've never heard of see http://tess2.uspto.gov/ ). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Butter the Bread with Butter

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Band has released two albums, but neither is on a notable label. They have supported some notable bands, but so have a million other non-notable acts; that's ccertainly not enough to establish notability. I searched through the first 10 pages of Google (and optimistically checked Google Books) but couldn't find any reliable sources at all, let alone any giving the band significant coverage. I even went and looked at the German WP to see if there was anything there, but again no reliable sources cited. Essentially another Myspace band at present. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites two interviews and a review from three different publications, at least two of which appear to be professionally edited magazines (in addition to a paragraph in yet another reliable-looking music magazine). This is sufficient to pass WP:NM (criterion #1). Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not certain that Redfield Records (their label) doesn't meet the WP:NMUSIC standard of "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". They've been around since 2001, have score of artists on the roster, and seem to have international dealings. Whether their bands are notable I don't know -- they might be notable in Europe, and that's hard to tell for me. I get this from a machine translation of their "about" page, here. Herostratus (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countless Blues

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

The article says that this is the debut album of Lester Young. This statement is loaded with flaws: 1, he debuted with Count Basie; 2, these recordings are not Lester Young recordings, per se, but rather, recordings under the leadership of Benny Goodman, Count Basie and Teddy Wilson (or Billie Holiday); 3, these tunes were not released in album format in the 1930s, they were released as single 78 RPM discs, having one song on each side of the vinyl record. Thus, this was not a debut album.

And where is the info on record label or catalog number? This is most likely a semi-legal European reissue of 1930s recordings originally from Columbia Records.

And, there are no references or sources for this article.Dogru144 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel problems with other article on super-obscure CD compilation

This article has identical flaws with another article on a Lester Young CD compilation. I have included the comments as they are pertinent here. I wonder whether this article is actually regarding a bootleg (not properly licensed) compilation of a CD, given that there is no discographical information. If this is the case, this article could serve as commercial promotion for said new CD.

First, the release date was given as identical to the last date identified among the various recording dates.

Second, the recording is given as album, yet with the original release date this is an error, as there were no long playing vinyl albums until the end of the 1940s.

Third, the running time is given as around 56 minutes. Jazz albums of short compositions such as these, in compilation format, were never release in the LP era. The running time of 56 minutes indicates a compact disc. Are compilations on minor or semi-legal non-US recording labels usually included in wikipedia?

Fourth, there is no record company or catalog number given. For that matter, no reference is given for this article.

Fifth, the last point is crucial, as it would help differentiate the album from numerous other releases that appear in the most comprehensive popular recording database, allmusic.com, with the same exact album title.

Sixth, the song configuration correlates with no album that appears in the above database or in amazon.com

For the above reasons, I recommend this article for deletion.Dogru144 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 14:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like a CD that was released in 2001, and one of many trivial compilations. It should be deleted due to lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mattg82. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Young was a notable jazz musician and many of his original recordings and the tunes he composed are notable. But notability is not inherited by random compilations of a musicians works.Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Edison (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inside-Out Boy

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

As a short and not an actual series, it doesn't seem to meet the notability for television. The article was laden with trivia which I snipped out, but a search for the title finds only false positives (i.e., "Yes, Digger, it's inside-out. Boy, you're careless…"). I can't find any information at all on the show (not even its creator), and it seems the article creator can't either as they openly admit not knowing the VA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how to note TV links to this article? --Does it look like rocks to you!? 01:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To do what? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin B. Terry-Smith

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

The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin B Terry-Smith has had numerous interviews which have the information that has been reflected in this article. The interviews have been in his words and are valid. The reference are also from valid publications, newspapers, and including the Channel 9 News interview about HIV/AIDS in DC and Logo's HIV + Me segment interview with Ongina Ryan. Terry-Smith has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are changes to be made I would love to check my sources and changes whatever information needs to be changes but please do not delete this article. Terry-Smith is a pillar in the HIV/AIDS Community. Which resources do not have significant coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmithco98 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: While this person does appear to have some degree of significant coverage, especially within the gay and HIV communities, I struggled to find any reliable sources that were more than interviews with the subject or writings from the subject himself which does not go toward establishing enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Topher385 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ender Thomas

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet MUSICBIO either. J04n(talk page) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Passes #10 at WP:Music, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.; namely, his role for the album and video Yanni Voices (showcasing four vocalists, Mr. Thomas being one of them). This debuted on Billboard's Top 200 and #1 on the New Age chart. The Spanish version, Yanni Voces, debuted at #2 on Billboard's New Age chart, #5 on the Latin Pop chart, and #13 on the Latin overall chart. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I've added multiple sources just now, and many similar additional ones exist—although all of them are focussed on his work for Yanni's Voices. Cricket02 makes a fair point about criterion #10, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Blood!

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

Non-notable album. Cerejota (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fesi Sr.

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

Individual has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject seems to only appear in local sources and has no significant coverage anywhere else. Topher385 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Grass

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

Non-Notable sculpture Mt king ^(edits) 06:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mention at the artists article is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in New Zealand this is very much a notable sculpture. It is featured prominently in media about sculpture in New Zealand.CalvinSays 01:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalvinSays (talk • contribs)

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) 01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG Topher385 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. Thor Jensen

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

Person is not notable under WP:GNG; the text reads like an advertisement for his work. TheNate (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jensen has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources such as the Wall Street Journal. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a single mention in a WSJ blog and a couple of interviews with small websites = notable? If so, Wikipedia will have to be vastly expanded to accommodate many others with similar credentials. TheNate (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Nothing inherently notable about this person. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's also an editor at UGO.com. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Alexis

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

This person does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria at the applicable notability guideline. She has a few publications and has been briefly interviewed as a fitness expert, but appears to not have received coverage from independent sources per the general notability guideline. The article reads more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that she meets WP:GNG due to all her television appearances and mentions in various articles. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but fleeting appearances in news programs in which she may or may not say anything really do not establish notability regardless of how many there are. There is no substance to any of the coverage I can find that could really be used to build a biography. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources Added Thank you for your feedback on this article. I have added more sources, including videos of Jade leading a video workout for Elle with Brooklyn Decker, her portion of Body Blast Flow workout on the Celebrity Trainers Workout DVD as well as a variety of her workout videos from Reefitness by Reebok. Reading through the General notability guideline, these resources appear to meet these standards in my opinion. If you're still unsatisfied, could you provide more specific information on the kind of details you're looking for? Thank you! --LizGere (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of secondary sources written about and independent of the subject would be helpful, rather than material with which she is involved. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the following sources already included do not meet your criteria for secondary sources? http://ellemakebetter.com/meet-the-experts/ & http://www.sofeminine.co.uk/reefitness/personal-coach-d13810x40919.html Thanks --LizGere (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither of those websites are independent of the subject as discussed at WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kranen

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

unnotable since we can't find notable references (everything is self-published) and only a couple of hundred people ever played this game ever, anyway. if this was enough to meet criteria, we'd have as many drinking game articles as we have US town articles. Ysangkok (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of notability, and ability to do that looks very unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the best repositories of information on the game currently in existence, and it would be a shame for it to be lost. The game is notable enough to be discussed in the welcoming materials at both the physics and mathematics departments at University of Copenhagen, so while it may be mostly played people at the faculty of science there, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that faculty who hasn't played or at least heard of this game. As an additional reference, the game was been mentioned in FAMØS 16-1. In short, an inclusionist vote for keeping it. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 23:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also I think the number of people who have played this game should be counted in thousands and not hundreds, as it has been introduced to alle the new students at mathematics and physics at the university of copenhagen for the last 10-15 years. PoiZaN (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has NO references and a thorough Google search indicates that this it is not notable. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual university departments themselves are only very rarely considered notable, so basic common sense would indicate that games played only in individual departments should also not be so considered. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UrArtist Network

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

No indications of notability. Although the article claims they are affiliated with a number of notable bands, it does not make clear what the nature of the affiliation is, and no reliable sources can be found to verify any of it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable, a reliable, unbiased source that took seconds to find is here, from Bloomberg Business Week. How can someone say no reliable sources exist when they do and take seconds to find? Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I added references to the artist list, there are sources about the bands affiliated with the organization. It is a primary source, from the "Artists" section of their official website, but it contributes to the verifiability of the article, and is a source.Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The reference provided is not an article from Bloomberg Business Week but a mere business directory listing that does not in any way support the notability of the company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the text from, investing.businessweek.com. It supports the notability of the company significantly:

"urArtist Network provides resources, services, and facilities for the development and promotion of artists, bands, and support crew in Canada and internationally. It enables artists and independent management to make educational and practical decisions on careers. The company offers a suite of digital tools and label management services for established and developing artists. It offers services for music recording artists, songwriters, and composers in the area of music licensing; management services in the areas of recording, manufacturing, retailing, distributing, and promoting albums, as well as securing sponsorship, booking gigs to tour management, and public relations; and marketing services, such as interactive digital media marketing, radio and video promotion, entertainment strategy development, database communication, creative and development, lifestyle marketing, mobile marketing, and publicity and media relations. The company also provides studio production services, including songwriting, audio and video recordings, and studio/backline rentals; television production services for creating live broadcasts, music videos, and genre-specific programming; event planning services for gatherings and city-wide festivals; and education services in the areas of technical engineering, production lessons, performance caps, entertainment businesses, and management. In addition, it offers music products, clothing for men and women, music gear, vehicles, and computers through its store. The company is based in Toronto, Canada."

The fact that it is listed on Bloomberg Businessweek, which is very unlikely to list unnotable companies, further validates the articles notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a flawed assumption: Bloomberg Businessweek's "Company Insight Center" claims to provide information on over 320,000 private companies worldwide. While this may not include every company, it does seem to be a large enough number to be rather indiscriminate about the notability of the companies listed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established through any reliable 3rd party sources that I can find. PK T(alk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources about the company. I agree with WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the Bloomberg Businessweek source. Tantamount to a directory entry, the source cannot be used to establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles. Courcelles 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying

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

Is this notable? It's only referenced to a PDF, couldn't this be merged to the main article? I think that would work better. If not, why not delete it? Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I oppose only the deletion of the info. Per Tennis Project guidelines this draw is notable. However it really should be merged to the bottom of the 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles page as I see no reason why it needs it's own article. Once merged then I would agree to delete this page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete an article once it's been merged – it needs to stay undeleted (generally in the form of a redirect) to provide attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles, and as a note to the nominator; if you think the primary action should be a merge, then you could have initiated a discussion on the article page or boldly merged it rather than taking it to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (changed to merge below) per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines#Notability which allows for articles on qualifying rounds for ATP World Tour events. The problem with merging is that these articles are fairly bulky in terms of screen space meaning the merged article gets difficult to navigate. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles page? It's tiny as wiki pages go and can easily accept the qualifying draw below it as a separate section. I agree that the qualifying is notable but the guidelines do not say it deserves a separate article only that it should be "included" in the draw article. There is no reason this should be separated and it should have simply been merged instead of discussing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a computing standpoint 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles is tiny at 18.7kb. If we keep the page in top-down chronological order then Qualifying goes above the Main draw section. At present Qualifying in the main article just has "Main article: 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying" which seems to be an appropriate amount of screen real estate for this part of the tournament. The Qualifying page is also tiny (8.2kb) but uses 2.5 full pages of text on my monitor. That's why I called it "bulky." I suspect 99% of the people looking at the main article don't care about the qualifying rounds. We should not force them to scroll/page down for 2.5 pages to get to the main article content. We could use one of those show/hide blocks but I thought the WP:MOS strongly discouraged hidden content as it won't show up when you print the article, etc. I can't see anything in WP:MOS about this at the moment. Thus I was leaning towards keep rather than merge. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the answer is to move the less important content to later in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I updated 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles to include the qualifying draw (permalink) which is also the result if we merged this content. In looking this over I'd say it's fine and added a notice on the wikiproject tennis talk page to see if there's resistance to updating their article guidelines. Also, I found the MOS section I was thinking of earlier at MOS:SCROLL / MOS:COLLAPSE. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance I like it! Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niteflirt

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. Notability is not demonstrated. There is an assertion which precludes CSD ("revolutionized phone sex") but there are no third-party sources of any kind, so the assertion is uncited. There is a slogan (complete with registered trademark symbol) and in general it looks like an advertising page, nothing more. Frank | talk 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Rymatz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about non-notable phone sex operator. The writing style leads me to estimate that the likelihood of a copyright violation is very high. I don't want to dive into their website to verify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Rymatz. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy as an advertisement. Most of the first sentence appears to have been lifted but the rest does not seem to be a copyright violation. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Retracted !vote - a previous revision of the article is much better (although has its problems) and includes sourcing. This article may simply need a revert and some cleanup. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked at the reverted/updated version and I still don't see that this subject meets WP:CORP, which begins: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Frank | talk 12:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a look at the sourcing and it fails to be significant coverage. They are just passing mentions that Niteflirt is one the services from the company Ingenio. A very weak case might be made that the parent company is notable, but Niteflirt isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Only one delete !vote was posted after the article was reverted to a state before some goober tried to spam it up. It probably will get deleted but a little more discussion on the current version would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that I think this is a relevant entry and should not be deleted. Like other companies that are marketplaces, like ebay, this company is one that many independent phone fantasy providers rely on for their income. It is a significant company in its industry, and it is useful for users of Niteflirt to be able to research the company's history, as well as for any potential competitors to do so. I believe the entry is out of date and that Niteflirt has split off from Ingenio, no longer being part of the same company. The problem I see is that the article needs to be updated, not that it isn't worthy of having a wikipedia entry. (This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I'm doing the markup right or commenting correctly. Apologies if so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffingthingsup (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above comment is unpersuasive. Ingenio seems to be notable, but this is not Ingenio, and notability is not inherited. This fails GNG and CORP so I see no reason to pull IAR because of specialized nature.--Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby & West

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be much coverage aside from this mention. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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