Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 29

< 28 May	30 May >

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Article already redirected (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huron County Road 83

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

non-notable road. Contains no more information than what the county road list should contain. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to List of numbered roads in Huron County and be done with it. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as Bearcat. If substantial information can be added, it can be reverted to a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Be bold, and I doubt you'll draw an objection. The original author has been inactive for a couple of years, and nothing's really lost this way anyway. Mandsford 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I suppose. I'd prefer it as a redlink on the county page so that someone knows it hasn't been created, as opposed to a circular redirect. Oh well, if I were admin... blah blah blah - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popfreeradio.com

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

Poorly sourced, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. —fetch ·comms 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - written about in a local KC laterntive weekly; [1], [2]. That's not enough for me to say keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage by independent sources minimal.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Acroterion _(talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Langston

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

Article is an unambiguous hoax My76Strat (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mayer (composer)

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

Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. There is a press release that is fairly easy to find via Google news that should not be mistaken for a reliable source. J04n(talk page) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Boleyn3 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _noisy jinx ^huh? 12:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n --Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ot4xb

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

Contested prod, removed by author. Project is non-notable; it cites no sources and I can't find any reliable articles to prove that it's notable, so it fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- uncited and nothing but forums and such on my search, apparent lack of wiki notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- plainly fails WP:N. - Pmedema (talk)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:99BOTTLES. PleaseStand ^(talk) 03:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Crystal does not apply as the show is undoubtly going to air. Crystal matters when you are predicting something whose actual occurance may or may not happen. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping, the existance of 42 other episodes for the series is a strong precident, while the article may not be much now, I have no doubt that it will be expanded... deleting it today to have it created in a week is just a little too much... if it doesn't get expanded after it airs, then we could revisit it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pause (Boondocks)

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

Contested proposed deletion. Article is on a television episode which has not yet been aired, and thus there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL probably applies. Claritas § 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and as the nom said WP:CRYSTAL. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? In 2 weeks it's going to be aired, at which point someone will create the article again. Is it really worth taking up the space and time of an AFD to make someone write an article twice? Buddy431 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that it will gain significant coverage in reliable sources after it is aired ? It may not. In any case, we can't judge the future notability of a television episode which has not yet been aired. Claritas § 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable unaired episode with obviously no significant coverage; if it actually becomes notable after it airs (though unlikely), then it may warrant an article, but Wikipedia does not operate on the likely hood of future notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This is verifiable through Sony, and it is likely to merit an article, as we have 42 articles in Category:Boondocks (TV series) episodes. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Lords of the Nine Hells. . ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble of Devilkin

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

The article concerns a set of fictional characters from Dungeons & Dragons which do not meet WP:N. ~~Most of the article is unverifiable~~. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources, GoogleBooks yields nothing, and presumably the books cited are parts of the Dungeons & Dragons series, so they're not independent. Claritas § 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that these individual fictional characters are almost certainly not notable, they can indeed be verified through their appearance in primary sources. Primary sources in fiction can meet V, but not N. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - what I meant was that I couldn't verify the content of the article through sources found on the internet. Regards. Claritas § 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence of notability to provide a rationale for inclusion of this topic at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is useful for players who want ideas for their games, but if the publications on this rabble are limited to a few Dragon articles, it is peripheral even for D&D. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lords of the Nine Hells. BOZ (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lord of the Nine Hells. No sources to meet WP:N but could fit in another article in the mean time... Shooterwalker (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 Guy (Help!) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenika Hellas

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

unreferenced article about non notable organization WuhWuzDat 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Madsen

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

No references to establish notability. Unclear claim to notability as well. Google news/archive doesn't bring back anything, but again, going by the text it's unclear why subject would be given significant coverage in reliable sources Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability seems reasonably well established within the context of Madsen's Chief Translator position on the INGA-SHABA project, the USA's largest project in Africa during the 1970s and 80s. His contributions financially, through the Bank of Zaire, ensured employment of hundreds of Americans during the time frame in question. His verifiable technology transfer publications (Int'l Academy of African Business, etc.)are noteworthy and contribute to his significance. His connections to Bill Clinton's Cabinet, directly or indirectly, are also of more than passing interest.

True, the tone of this contribution could be improved, rendering it less mellifluous and more reportorial.

Deletion, after many unchallenged years on Wikipedia, seems a bit harsh. Rewording or elimination of some portions would seem more appropriate.

Omarcheeseboro's archives indicate willingness to work with articles such as this one. Perhaps through dialogue, this colorful biography can remain, in an improved form. Sources for this bio appear intact through cross-linking to specific, well-documented Wiki articles.— User:203.145.90.192 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without coverage in any published Reliable Sources, this fails WP:V and WP:GNG. However i am willing to change my mind if such coverage can be found. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are apparently a number of internet and published sources utilizing and discussing his material on Algeria (Ben Bella, El Outaya, etc) and The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), plus the IAABD site. These locations are returned by Google and Google Beta, for example:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/31004989/The-El-Outaya-Salt-Refinery-Project

http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_archive/2001/jun01/0338.html

http://www.wikiwak.com/texis/wcolz/viewcache.html?q=sozacom+building&h=5317f312b02bedba8a3bc0a98bd47a31

http://www.pdf-tube.com/en/doc/El%20Outaya-1.html

Looking over WIKI's Reliable Source criteria, he fits into a scholarly category, though admittedly has published seriously on only two or three countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.225 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — User:203.145.92.225 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

In the presence of his apparently serious deletion suggestion, still under consideration in compliance with WIKI's due process rules, I'm left wondering why Omar (15 May) removed the justified "Harvard tag" (I've just replaced it) and added "Quincy, Mass". This minor change could point to his personal frustration with the actual content of the article, rather than to a legitimate desire to delete in accordance with WIKI policy.

(1) In support of the THIRD PARTY source condition, here's an article from a New Hampshire newspaper attesting to the Inga Shaba appointment and three other periods of corporate employment, plus degrees and so forth. More sources coming as the search continues.

http://membres.multimania.fr/transnational/News-cli.gif

You should try to find out the name and date of the paper, otherwise you may have difficulty convincing others it is a legitimate listing. It will also be hard to reference without that data. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

(2) NPOV seems to be an issue primarily because of the "ebullient style" of the article -- but this objection was dealt with in previous discussions and resulted only in a lower rating for the article, not an overt suggestion for deletion. An aesthetic argument can be made in favor of this style since it makes reading more enjoyable and less tedious.

(3)Intra-textual references are scattered throughout the bio-article, mostly linking to well-established WIKI articles dealing with Electronic Defense Labs, Inga-Shaba, Young Socialist Alliance, Notre Dame University, and Andre Gide, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.143.134 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) — User:124.217.143.134 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

There is also WIKI's 'occasional exception' rule whereby the text of the article can be reworked slightly and the page retained based on its intrinsic interest and notability of accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.225 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — User:203.145.92.225 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

It's curious that this bio has been selected for deletion; it had been fairly recently upgraded from a START bio, considerably above a template and stub, to one of the GREEN levels, a B at least. As Omar points out in his initial flagging statement, there is really no reason that a CHIEF TRANSLATOR, TECHNICAL AUTHOR and CENTRAL BANK LIAISON SPECIALIST (responsible for disbursal of millions of dollars for American jobs) should necessarily be recognized by 'reliable sources' in the formal sense. WIKI is liberal enough, under the occasional exception rule, for example, to recognize some unsung heroes who are indeed notable and noteworthy. I recommend some (1) re-editing of the text, (2) perhaps some abridgment and (3) giving the contributors a chance to improve the overall article, as was the original intent when rating this article between a START and an "A' or "B". (SEE TALK PAGE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.143.230 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — 124.217.143.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so far, we have the nomination, one delete !vote, and a large volume of comment in defence from four SPA IPs, all located in Hong Kong and probably the same person. Some more independent opinions are needed. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omar, Sodabottle, and John CD --> A photo is one of the primary 'Wiki-means' of identifying a person of historical notability and here is one of Madsen, Master of Ceremonies, taken on board the 'M/V Jack Langland' during a major christening event, attended by Ambassadors and Congolese officials, which was organized for this large self-propelling barge on the Congo River. In addition to the foregoing information, emanating from Hong Kong (you're right...but by TWO persons...a professor and a colleague of Madsen's), this should provide sufficient proof to at least maintain the article temporarily intact until some re-editing can be accomplished...but kindly remove the discouraging labels and tags at the top for a few months at least. Photo: http://membres.multimania.fr/transnational/langland.jpg Other African project photos are also available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.141.69 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC) • — 124.217.141.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"...but in practice not everything need actually be attributed" WP:V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.226 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears the subject's major notable accomplishment is donating money to Africa in some way. It isn't entirely clear what his role entailed and is somewhat confusing to read. The rest reads like a resume, indicating his schooling and even his GPA. By this standard anyone who works overseas for the government and has some semblence of authority would be eligible to have an article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
In point of fact, Madsen was extracting money, hundreds of millions, from Africa for technical services rendered and creating hundreds of jobs for Americans with this Zairian money. In any event, Madsen probably wouldn't want his article on WIKI ... which seems to have some rather basic editorial support problems. Please remove this article forthwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.90.173 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Several inaccuracies in Nineteen's assertions... Also: Sodabottle's vote is conditional. Indeed, verifiable third party sources have been identified...Omar's original flagging, emanating from someplace close to Langley, Virginia, seems dubiously motivated as well... Anyway, good wiki-fellows, do what you wish with this article which embodies considerable merit.

Delete - Anyone interested in researching anything about this fellow will probably see all there is to see on the [Inga–Shaba] page, which is more notable yet far shorter. Everything else on the page is little more than either personal vanity or unsourced research. His main claim to fame is embedded deep within the article. A Google search turns up nothing but this article. The age of the article should not be a consideration in not deleting it. Jaqphule (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm willing -- even as a former supporter of this article -- to accept Jaqphule's assessment which seems to encapsulate the essence of the problem. Google Beta may have produced more results than simply Google, but all of that is irrelevant due to the 'vanity issue' which, almost as a humorous taunt to Wiki, dominates the article's tone. You may delete the article. Perhaps the Inga-Shaba page can be strengthened somewhat in the near future.

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing to New Lows

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, demo albums are presumed non-notable, unless significant third-party coverage exists. A quick google search reveals a plethora of file sharing sites, but not much in the way of independent coverage by reliable sources. Therefore I do not see why this demo album merits its own page. Imperatore (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Delete, then Redirect. It's true, demo tapes (and similar) are almost never notable enough for articles, but a redirect to MGMT discography would be harmless enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has one reliable source with significant coverage, but that isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As far as I can see from a quick skim, the said reliable source only has that one sentence about this demo quoted in the article. Therefore it is by no means significant coverage. Imperatore (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Coppinger

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

Non notable local councillor. Has been tagged for notability since January 2009. Prod previously removed on the basis that she has received national coverage but none of this is in the article and the only coverage I can find mentions her in passing and certainly doesn't constitute the type of in depth coverage that we'd neet to meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Valenciano (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable local politician, Fails WP:Politician, also fails WP:GNG. Snappy (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone created this again and I nominated this again. Not notable.

Exiledone (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly she wasn't notable enough the last time, being a local councillor, but she has just been nominated as a member of the European Parliament, in the room of Joe Higgins, which I consider to be notable. Therefore I created a new article on her.Red Hurley (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated her last time she wasn't notable. Now, as a Euro MP, she is notable. This confirms that she'll be an MEP. Also as a procedural point no further edits should be made to this page. A new AFD should be started using subst:afdx|2nd surrounded by {{ }}. Exiledone, if you still want to go ahead with it and have diffs formating the AFD drop a message on my talk and I'll help you but be aware that I'd oppose such a nomination. Valenciano (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I didn't realise she was being co-opted onto the European Parliament.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Walsh (golfer)

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

Non-notable professional golfer. Does not appear to have competed at a high level, has no major achievements and unable to find any sources to verify anything. _wjemather ^bigissue 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable. Tewapack (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 15:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, and no significant coverage exists. Claritas § 16:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence of playing in one of the top golf tours. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-pedophile activism

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

The article fails to meet WP criteria for inclusion. Reasons for deletion include the following:

Large portion of the text is about Perverted Justice and topics related to this organization (e.g., its affiliates and criticism of its tactics), all of which is discussed in a separate article.
Remaining information fails to meet the notability requirement.
Presence of original research and poor sourcing.
No lead section.
The problems with this article have been brought up on its Talk Page in the past (starting in September 2009), and no improvements have been made. Tags regarding OR, notability and lack of lead have been present since January 2010.

~ Homologeo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I agree that the article is in a pretty poor state, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and an article on a notable topic (just see references for confirmation of significant coverage) shouldn't be deleted due to the state of the article. I suggest that you be bold and remove irrelevant information and OR, source the article properly, and write a lead. I'd be happy to assist you. Claritas § 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article is kept upon the completion of this AfD discussion, I could remove the Perverted Justice and related content, along with OR and other inappropriate info. However, I do not consider this topic notable enough and foresee almost nothing remaining from the current text, once the deletions take place. Thus, I don't think I'll be the one to resurrect this piece. If the article remains, anyone else interested in and knowledgeable in the subject matter is encouraged to contribute. As it stands right now, I really do not see the value of keeping this article within the project. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest that the problems raised by Homologeo, such as duplication with Perverted Justice, be addressed and then the deletion issue can be revisited. There is an anti-pedophile movement, and PJ is not the only anti-pedophile organization. Four-month old tags are relatively new and shouldn't be taken as a cause for deletion. Will Beback talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is very bad shape, but the topic is indisputably notable. Powers ^T 18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic itself is notable buth is a mess right now. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. True, Perverted Justice is rather/mostly targeting hebephiles instead of pedophiles, and they need to be largely cut from this article, but I have no doubt that this article can be fixed up in text, other sources, and accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or total rewrite. When you look at what pages link to it we find only 7 actual articles, these are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. All the other linked pages are user, talk, redirects or Wikipedia admin pages. Also it is hopelessly flawed and if kept it should be rewritten in its entirety. The vast majority of the article is about Perverted-Justice and should be on that page if it’s not already. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would a stubification be appropriate ? I can't see that much encyclopaedic material in the article worth keeping at all - if reduced to a few short paragraphs it would be more easy to reconstruct as a good encyclopaedic article. Just a thought. Claritas § 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution isn't to delete articles that need to be improved; the solution is to improve them. This is a notable subject and it deserves an article. Beginning (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Subpages for your own userspace can be speedily deleted on request under CSD U1, or if that's not appropriate, at MFD. NAC—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Steveyeu/sandbox 1

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

Created in error, was supposed to be created as a sub page of my user page steveyeu ^../(talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tagged the article for speedy deletion under criterion G7: only contributor requesting deletion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding less coverage of this by the Texas press, as compared to the newspapers of other states acknowledging their annual state JCL competition. If they wore helmets, they might get more attention in the Lone Star State. I'm not going to endorse a delete, but in the absence of some independent sources, I can't say keep. Mandsford 16:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP.See my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. All the articles about local chapters should be deleted. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." While we should at it we should delete the article National Junior Clasical League state chapters and the two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet recovery service

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

The prod was contested. The remover added references, but none of them show notability. I can't find significant coverage for this service. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had PRODded it. It is not a notable topic. How about Dog washing service, Dog walking service, Television repair service, Vehicle recovery service?? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think any of those would be a fine topic for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you think that would be pushing the bounds of Wikipedia rather too far? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quoting myself from below: Vehicle recovery, Dog walking, Dog_grooming--Savonneux (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Joe Chill This article doesn't seem to cover a particular pet recovery service, just the concept of a pet recovery service. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by concept? This is an actual service that is done by certain companies. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A related AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HelpmefindMYPET. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and maybe rename) This is well documented concept. Any search brings up tons of hits. It's more like OCLC than any of the things you mentioned. It's like dogtags but with a computer network. Also there is a Vehicle recovery article, Dog walking :P --Savonneux (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do when they are in books, news, etc:

ASPCA complete guide to dogs - whole directory of them in back of book - ISBN 9780811819046
Coping with Sorrow on the Loss of Your Pet - ISBN 9781598584530
Pampering Your Pooch - ISBN 9780470009222
http://www.togethertag.com/ - company operating such a service
http://www.akccar.org/ - non-profit registry
http://public.homeagain.com/ - company operating such a service
http://www.lostmydoggie.com/ - company operating such a service
http://www.24petwatch.com/ - company operating such a service
http://www.petassure.com/lost_pet_recovery_service - insurance company that operates a service
http://www.petlink.net/ - company that operates a service in multiple countries
http://triangle.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=183217&type_news=latest - news article on AKC CAR network
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Sep/1074369.htm - news article about service in canada

There are hundreds more.

First reference - directories are not significant coverage, Reference 2 - Can't verify, Reference 3 - Can't verify, 4-10 - Companies having the service doesn't make it notable per WP:N, Reference 11 - likely press release, and Reference 12 - press release. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you cant verify there is a handy link to WorldCat on the Special:BookSources page. Does the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Associationn count?

Linda K. Lord; Thomas E. Wittum; Amy K. Ferketich; Julie A. Funk; Päivi J. Rajala-Schultz (2007). "Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost dog". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 230 (2): 211–216. doi:10.2460/javma.230.2.211.
Linda K. Lord; Walter Ingwersen; Janet L. Gray; David J. Wintz (2009). "Characterization of animals with microchips entering animal shelters". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 235 (2): 160–167. doi:10.2460/javma.235.2.160.

I cant even read half the news articles, I picked two at random, here are some more:

Presentation from "Annual Western Veterinary Conference 2008" [3]
News article [4] from the Idaho Statesman (the newspaper has a page on this very encyclopedia =O )
From the Denver Daily News [5]
From the Sacremento Bee [6]
From the AMVA [7], which doesnt have the exact words "pet recovery service" but talks about one of the companies (American Kennel Club) I listed above.

All the links should work, and there are more that are paywall. LexisNexis is handy.--Savonneux (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also when you say directories are not significant coverage, is true for individual companies/people/things ever so much more than topics. I was only trying to point out that enough companies purport to offer a service that a directory is necessary would denote that significant business (as in trade) in such a service does in fact exist. --Savonneux (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also also (it's like PPS), I do think the article needs to be rewritten/possibly renamed, excellent place to start would be the 20 some odd sources I've found. It's not esoteric by a long shot though.--Savonneux (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe the article can least be shown to have the minimum of notability. I'll leave it at AfD and see what others think. Joe Chill (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced. What is the problem with an article on a type of business? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominee is concerned about the sources. I don't think WP is the place where type of business needs documenting. Occupations, businesses etc are fine but we should draw a line in the sand and not list the huge variety of business types. Wikipedia is not a career guidance service!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all decide what sort of articles should be included. AFD is policy application, not development. --Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is sufficient to provide notability. Miyagawa (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominee listed it for AfD because of concerns about the references do not establish notability. Can you give rationale for your stance? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs an expand tag, not a afd nomination. Miyagawa (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I deprodded the article with the explanation that it is an article about a service and not an organization. There are hundreds of sources to verify that it is a notable service, and this article is very appropriate for Wikipedia. Moorsmur (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable type of business, supported by the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search, Google Books search, and even Google Scholar search has results for this. Its a real thing, and notable enough to be mentioned all over the place. Dream Focus 10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable service with ample sources to meet WP:GNG.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Smith Electric Cooperative

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent a showing of notability. To my knowledge, there is no inherent notability for individual electrical cooperatives, although an article about the suppliers of electrical current in Texas or any other region (where an agency regulates the provider-- sometimes it's a state or province, sometimes it's an entire nation) would be welcome. Mandsford 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now asserts its notability through references. This electric cooperative has served the Texas panhandle for over 70 years. I don't have access to the history that was written on the cooperative, but I can try to track it down to provide more content. Gobonobo ^T ^C 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: Promotional Nelogism. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey metal

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

Fails the notability requirements as a term probably only used by a ~~gamers~~ forum. Unlikely to be improved with the addition of independent (non-forum) sources. Raised as AFD as removal contested by multiple accounts. I suggest the article is restored to a simple re-direct if the consensus is non-notability. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Monkey Metal is a phrase created recently by members of the monkey lord forum (a musicians forum, not a gamers one) and is spreading across youtube etc. Therefore, if someone with sufficient knowledge of the use of wikipedia could help us create a legitimate page for it, we'd be most grateful. It IS a real genre of music, and many more obscure things have been given a wikipedia page.SwampAshSpecial (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out the gamers comment in the nomination based on your statement. Fæ (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have attempted to make the page a little more factual by listing some of the features of monkey metal and its influences. What else would need changing to make this a legitimate wikipedia page? SwampAshSpecial (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As per the nomination, forums and the neologisms they invent are non-notable unless they have more general impact as demonstrated in verifiable reliable sources. So to be a legitimate page it needs some reliable sources. Fæ (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then restore the redirect as it is non-notable. Wizard191 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are no reliable third party sources indicating notability.--SabreBD (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable amateur group. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marlow Amateur Operatic society

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

Non-notable, non-professional musical ensemble. Google searching turns up nothing to support WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG requirements. Joal Beal (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the original nomination. Cool Hand Luke 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this music ensemble. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am still editing/making this page and we do have music - we perform 2 chior concerts and a musical each year.

Steven131 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to establish notability. Their website doesn't even allow for access without login!--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: depends what broswer you are using. the website isnt coded for chrome or anything apart form internet explorer. if you use anyother broswer you may need to login but it wont display properly. the only part of the website you actually need to login to is the members section.

Steven131 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Steven, I'm crossing out your "keep"; you only get one !vote.--MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am totally in favor of amateur choral groups and of what we in the States call "little theater". I'm in an amateur choral society myself, and I have taken part in amateur theatrical productions; however, they weren't "notable". Not every such group is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Notabliity requires that there be outside sourcing about the group, such as reviews or human-interest stories in the newspaper. And I can't find any such. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gringo

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary article through-and-through; it covers etymology, word history, and examples of use. It even has a section titled "Meanings" for heaven's sake! This article should be deleted so that Gringo (disambiguation) can be moved to this title. Powers ^T 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not even remotely appropriate for a dictionary (compare wikt:gringo, which is what a dictionary entry would look like). This is a thoroughly encyclopedic, tolerably well researched and sourced encyclopedia article whose topic happens to be a word. Nothing wrong with that. +Angr 13:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even well-researched and sourced articles can be inappropriate topics. Find me anything in this article that wouldn't be found in a comprehensive dictionary entry (which the wiktionary article is not). Powers ^T 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The section headings are a bit muddled and there are many 'Citation needed' tags, but deletion is not for cleanup. This article discusses the social distribution and use of the word, the history of its usage, and its proposed etymology. Only the latter is dictionary content. Just as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Cnilep (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, usage history is dictionary content as well. Powers ^T 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "WP is not a dictionary." There could be an article on every word in the English language, although this one seems to exists mainly in Spanish and only secondarily in English. There is nothing so special about this word, also the article is full of opinions on if the word is offensive in various countries. We can't read people's minds to know what their intentions are in using a word so all this is just based on opinions. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly and encyclopedia-style treatment of a significant topic. This is not a mere linguistics exercise, but an examination of social history through the prism of a word. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Except that an encyclopedia is supposed to give information directly, not by way of "prisms." That's more the job of art. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Does it impart useful information for a user searching the term?" That is the key question. The answer is YES. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what's so special about this word, compared to thousands of others that don't have articles but could. I just checked out "commie" and it redirects to Communism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I compared this article with the Wiktionary article. Theirs is definitely just a dic def. this article, while probably poorly constructed (not that i could do better), and probably heavy on the word origins, is about a word that has enough debate, controversy to justify having an encyclopedia article. its a perfect subject to wikify, to link to other articles, to categorize, in ways that wiktionary cant do. WP is not a dictionary is really not applicable here, as there is abundantly more to this word than its definition. Regarding the Commie redirect: actually, i find it odd that the word Communist doesnt have an article, considering the furor around being identified as one at various times. I would argue we need an article (or at least a subsection) just for all the notable times someone has been called a communist to score political points. Here are some legitimate books which feature the term and the subject to some degree beyond dic def: Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America by Chesa Boudin, Gringo: the making of a rebel by Emil Willimetz, El gringo: New Mexico and her people, William Watts H. Davis. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and might be improved in accordance with our editing policy by reference to scholarly sources such as Observations on the Word Gringo. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably. I think Powers is spot on that the article in its current state is little more than a dictionary entry and is inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, taking a quick look at Colonel Warden's source and a making a cursory scan of Google Books, where I found some additional potential sources ([8][9][10]) I have all confidence that the article could be expanded into a decent encyclopedia article on a word, rather than a dictionary entry. In this case I think the solution is cleanup rather than deletion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reasonable encyclopedic article, much more than a definition. Other than the pejorative offense the word has, I can see no rationale for anybody making a case for exclusion. In other words, this article is being attacked on alterior PC grounds rather than its legitimacy.Trackinfo (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the Wiki article for "nigger" recommended for deletion. The first sentence of the article states "Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts." It identifies the subject as a word from a language, but the word itself has a culturally contextual relevance that elevates it above a mere dictionary entry. I feel like the word "gringo" (being one myself) has the same relevance. It seems to me (and, I'm no expert) that the purpose of a dictionary is merely to function as a rote reference book (using the Wiki page's definition of rote learning as my basis: "rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorization) and an encyclopedia is meant to function as a contextually aware guide to its subject material. Someone above said (with an implied eye-rolling) that there could be an encyclopedia article for every word in the English language, and I would say that, actually, there very well could, if it was going to be contextually relevant, and not just a dry, rote listing of the textbook meaning of the words, separate from any cultural or historical awareness. Obviously the encyclopedia itself should be a bias-free reference, but since I, as a person, do not have to be, I would like to believe that in a perfect world, having an encyclopedic knowledge of where these words come from would inspire us to no longer use them, or at the very least have them reappropriated or recontextualized. Iammichaeldavis (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - somewhat messy and poorly organized, but also extremely well-referenced, obviously notable concept (not a dictinary article on a word). Past outcomes for such concepts almost always results in a keep. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For past examples, see sisu, premises, and velleity. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on the concept of foreigner. Powers ^T 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

University of Gloucestershire Gladiators

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

Non notable. Only mention I can find on Google besides site related directly to this team and its rivals is this article in the weekly Bath Chronicle which basically gives a brief run down of the whole season for a rival team (i.e. it says Bath Bees will play Gloucestershire Gladiators (Note that it also turns up a lot of links to Gloucestershire Gladiators who are much more notable). Lack of coverage is not really surprising as with a mere handful of exceptions, largely confined to mainstream British sports (such as soccer, rowing, cricket and rugby), university sports teams in the UK are of little not even in their own institution never mind in the wider world. The article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent coverage, the prospects of being able to reference the article seem remote. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is also perhaps worth adding that the Bath Chronicle only has a circulation of around 18,000 [11]. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This team does not appear to be an exception to the general rule that British university sports teams are not notable. I'd add that that piece of coverage in the Bath Chronicle reads like a reprinted press release from the Bath University team - so even if it was significant coverage (and it isn't), I'd still question its independence. Pfainuk talk 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once again we have an article for a British University team. Again, it's in a niche sport in Britain. Again, I can't find anything to grant them notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no article. Cool team logo, tho...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside the nom. The name of the article can be further debated on the talk page. JForget 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian restaurants

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

List of restaurant chains, almost all of which have their own article. This list article appears to have been cobbled together over time and the entries lack coherence. Most of the worthwhile information that is in here could be incorporated into the relevant articles. There is already a 'Restaurants in Canada' category so this article would then be redundant CosmicJake (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep because it contains a lot of unique information and some of the companies which are big players in the Canadian market do not have their own articles (MTY Food Group, Chairman's Brand Corporation, Imvescor, Opa Souvlaki, Vanelli's) and the ones that do are largely very big companies with articles that are very long, information about those companies was added to, condensed and so useful in a list. There are many unique references and a lot of the information is properly researched. List of Canadian restaurants includes useful information on some companies that don't have their own articles (some of them are major players in the Canadian industry Chairman's brand corporation, imvescor, opa souvlaki of Greece, vanelli's). the article has been up for a couple years and has been receiving views. It provides useful detailed information on food restaurants that are based in Canada, there are not many if any other lists or articles that do that. Many people seeking information on the Canadian industry might only be interested in a small amount of general information on each company, just a general overview of the companies that comprise the Canadian market that are Canadian. The articles don't offer that because of requirements that they have a certain amount of pages linking to them, references. Thoses requirements also make it difficult for some parent company's like imvescor and chairmans to have their own articles because there isn't enough information about them to make their own article. I have found this page useful and I'm sure I'm not the only person who does.Grmike (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep but Rename as List of Canadian restaurant chains (because it's specifically about chains, not all Canadian restaurants) and rewrite as a categorized stand-alone list. Since these have all articles, the info is pretty redundant and not that helpful there. It would be more useful as a navigational list (what I expected to see), ordered by mother company possibly.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine list, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Redundant to a category" almost never works as an argument for deletion. About the only fault that I can give to this is that one can't devote that much space to each restaurant chain. However, in this instance, the "categories are the only way" crowd has nothing at all to be proud of-- Category:Restaurants in Canada, Category:Fast-food chains of Canada, Category: Restaurant chains in Canada, Category:Pizza chains of Canada, etc., -- what a mess! Mandsford 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename Clearly meets WP:list and WP:CLN--Mike Cline (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Warwick Wolves

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

Not notable. British university sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution, never mind the wider world. Warwick Wolves do not appear to be one of the mere handful of exceptions. The exceptions are generally confined to mainstream British sports such as soccer, cricket, rugby and rowing. American Football itself is of niche interest in the UK anyway. Besides sites directly related to the team and its rivals, other teams called Warwick Wolves and a supporters group for Wolverhampton Wanderers (often known by the nickname the Wolves), a quick search on google, turns up a single [very brief mention] in the Coventry Telegraph (circulation 47,000) saying that they played the paper's local university team. Article is also unreferenced, given the lack of independent sources there is little prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom and as per other recent AFDs, British university sports teams are not, generally speaking, notable. This one does not appear to be one of the rare exceptions to this rule. Pfainuk talk 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recent AfDs have shown that British uni sports teams are non-notable (even on their own campus). This team is no different. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no article. SUGGESTION I think we're going to pretty much end up deleting almost all of these team articles independently. I'm not ready to call it a group delete myself (although I wouldn't object if someone did) but I've also been on the "receiving end" of bulk deletions like this. My suggestion is that we slow down for a bit and let the editors have some time to create the articles/catch up. While these articles are of non-notable teams, they aren't doing any harm necessarily to Wikipedia so in the interest of being civil, I propose slowing down the process just a touch.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Earl "The Pearl" Little

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable local DJ and event promoter. An assertion of notability has been made, but there are no references, and a search has not turned up anything to support the statements. Additionally, the creator of the article appears to be connected to an advertising agency affiliated with the Hip-Hop Festival (see their projects page[12]), which would fall under CSD G11. The only reason I am submitting this to AFD is that a speedy was proposed and declined in 2008, shortly after the article's creation. Horologium (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability. There's only one notable Earl the Pearl, NBA legend Earl Monroe. Might as well change his name to "Air Jordan Little". Mandsford 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything on this guy. If someone comes up with substantial proof that he founded an important hip-hop event, I'll change my vote.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renpin

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

PROD removed. Concern was WP:NOT (dictionary). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no google hits for the topic. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will be blocking creator after this edit. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable religion. The only hits I find on Google are for this article. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the references are most likely unintelligible to a large portion of the article's audience since they are Chinese only, there is no corresponzing zh article, there is no way to verify much of what is claimed, and what is claimed strongly suggests it's an article about an hoax religion. Moocha (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax - at least some of it I'm familiar with, but it is pure OR. Delete as such. Tim Song (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On Here. This does not seem like a particularly well-formed AfD. For one thing, there is a second AfD with a different reason concurrently in progress. That AfD is based on a claim of "sockpuppetry", which I don't know about but I presume has some good basis. But this AfD is based solely on a concern of "WP:NOT (dictionary)" But it seems to me that assuming that Renpin is real it is capable of being a lot more than just a dicdef. We do have articles on Morality and whatever. I think that the claim that this is just a dicdef fails on its face. However, two cogent claims have been made (but not in this AfD): 1) All the sources are in Chinese, which most of us can't read, and 2) the whole thing is a hoax.

The first point is true. However, although I can't read them very well, they seem real enough (note that additional sources are given on the article talk page). However, I think that they are just people's blogs, not real news stories. But then I imagine it is pretty difficult to get real stories about new religous phenomena from China. Recall that WP:SOURCES#Non-English sources certainly does let us use foreign-language sources.

I'm not sure where the second allegation comes from. Perhaps from the statement "...new religion originated from Chinese online community", which certainly sounds fishy, although perhaps the person is just not expressing themselves clearly. Also the creator of the article seems overenthusiastic and for this he has been blocked, and then there are the allegations of puppetry at the other AfD.

Anyway, The AfD just says its a dicdef, and it would have been better if these other objections had been forwarded instad. And if we do have to delete the article, I think that we should recognize that the reason is "We at the English Wikipedia are insufficiently educated to be able to evaluate the sources", and not just jump all over this guy and his article. Herostratus (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a neologism in Chinese, not a "religious phenomenon" but more like "I'm out of luck this time, so I'll have better luck next time", expressed using that neologism. These sources are either blogs (all the hi.baidu ones, which also do not even mention the word "religion") or totally unreliable (the baike.baidu one, which is like a Chinese copycat of WP except that it is almost without any editorial control whatsoever except being "harmonized"). Tim Song (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says that the religion was created online, and I don't need to be able to read Mandarin to see that the cited sources are social networking/forum/blog somethings, simply from their formatting- not reliable, published sources, even in Chinese. Of course, notable religions can arise online (like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance), but I just can't see any reason to think that this is one of them. Happy to change my mind if someone finds better sources- even if they aren't in English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although the keep !voters have been very vocal in this debate, none of them actually provided a strong counter-argument to either the nomination or the delete !votes- for example some arguments didn't develop beyond "it's notable" while others went with "lots of sources" type arguments, but the sources that emerged were either local newspapers or LibDem and UK Parliament publications, of which the former are of questioanble reliability and the altter don;t verify basic biographical information so, with some reluctance, I'm closing this a delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Afzal

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

Article on non-notable local councillor who has not held any appropriate national or sub-national office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. No coverage in third party sources independent of the subject. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous news sources covering the political activities of this politician over many years. This is a repeat nomination which fails to bring anything new to the discussion and so is disruptive per WP:DEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something this has only been nominated once before - and that was way back in August 2005, nearly 5 years ago. You say there are numerous news sources covering him. Where are they? Certainly not in the article where they should be per WP:RS so your argument is basically a lots of sources fallacy and tantamount to a KEEP! vote. Valenciano (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are readily visible in the search links above and I just added one to the article. Please tell us what you have done to observe the proper preliminaries of WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added one yes, but did you read things like WP:NOTNEWS before adding it? Your ref like the others is a bog standard news story in the context of an election which he was unsuccessful in. It's an article about the election campaign, not about this individual. It doesn't cover him in the type of substantial detail needed to meet WP:GNG. So per numerous previous discussions and consensus at WP:POLITICIAN he's just an election candidate and therefore isn't notable. Valenciano (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS started as sensible guidance to avoid mundane stuff like weather reports. The naysayers at WP:NOT constantly try to expand their pet peeves but this is largely irrelevant to our work. The actual policy of Wikipedia may be seen from the main page where we have a section specifically devoted to news items. This currently contains details of a tropical storm, winners of a motor race, a song contest, an election result, a train derailment &c. The idea that all this should be moved to Wikinews is just not happening and so does not represent our consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:NOTNEWS is there to avoid mundane stuff, and the Birmingham Post article which you added as a ref is exactly that - one political party criticises another during the course of an election campaign and it gets reported in the local paper for that area. What's notable about that? So still we're left with the fact that the subject doesn't have the sort of in depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep (changed per sources below). Evidently notable, with plenty of sources about the subject along several years, as a trivial Gnews search shows. I endorse Colonel Warden comment: NOTNEWS is not a blanket that removes news sources from being reliable and useful in the context of the encyclopedia. Given that previous AfD was in 2005, when policies were different, I don't see the renomination as disruptive per se, but for sure the nom could have made some effort in WP:BEFORE. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which cover him in any detail or are even about him. This deals with a complaint he made in his context as a party spokesman. This is pay per view and seems to be about an election campaign. This seems to be about someone with the same surname. This one simply mentions that he's been selected as an election candidate (not notable) and the rest are just him speaking as a party spokesman, again not notable. So, sorry to correct you but the research was done and it involved looking a bit deeper than a "trivial Gnews search" which demonstrates that he clearly hasn't been covered in detail by multiple sources. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is a source about him, mentioning that he's been selected and speaking as a party spokesman. Both things are not notable per se, but it's an article about the subject, and this goes forward meeting WP:GNG. Here and here his declarations are reported in length. Here another full length article about him, in a fully different context than previously. Here another paragraph about him: why do you think it's another guy? Here his role in an international affair. Here coverage of his meeting with Pakistani president. Here another source that talks of him. Etc. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But almost all of that is routine coverage which simply establishes the fact that he is a politician/political spokesman. So routine news articles which simply mention that he has been selected to fight an election, which cover tasks which he's carried out as a local councillor etc don't meet notability guidelines, particularly those agreed at WP:POLITICIAN Most of the sources above which you cite are from his local paper in a subsection called Asian News, every local councillor will at one time or another get a quote in their local paper, past consensus has judged that local councillors aren't notable and for good reasons - there are millions of them. To answer your question this source which was on your gnews page, seems to be about someone with the same surname a Mohammed Azfal in a different political party. Valenciano (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "local councillor" that meets the Pakistani president, is involved in international relationships and whose declarations are reported in full length. What is linked above makes it clear that the politician passes WP:GNG without any problem. There are millions of local councillors, but this particular one is notable because he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is our basic and golden standard of notability. About the link: Yes this is another Afzal, but this other one is about our Afzal. Perhaps I misread above, I thought you were saying the latter was not about Qassim Afzal. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability. per sourcing. etc etc..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See: WP:Politician: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability...." In fact Afzal has twice been an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament and once served as a councillor in the 96-member Manchester City Council, which is one of 10 boroughs compromising Greater Manchester. There is nothing notable in the article. TFD (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here is not matter of "just being an elected local official": it is an elected local official with extensive sources coverage. See WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any articles about his time in council, just a mention that he was defeated in 2004. Not a single article is about him. His name did appear in the news when he ran for Parliament but that is true of all candidates for major parties. What is he notable for? TFD (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, did you open any of the links provided above? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did and I assure you that there is nothing notable about him. However, if you do not want to take my word for this, then please read them yourself. TFD (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I posted them, I know them. There are more than one article with full coverage of the person. See above. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this establishes notability. "...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". [13] Please provide one thing he has done that establishes notablity. TFD (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not trivial mentions. There are a couple of full articles where our guy is the one and only subject. This is more than what is requested by WP:GNG. We don't establish notability on the basis of what the guy has done, but on the basis of the secondary sources that talk about him. There are plenty. GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. , but we don't even need to claim that. [14], [15] are exclusively about the subject. [16], [17], [18] , [19] and [20] are not focused only of Mr.Afzal but talk about him extensively. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first article about Afzal is about his selection to run for parliament, and the third is a thumbnail sketch about him and other candidates. The other articles briefly mention activities carried out during his campaigns. Are you aware that newapapers regularly cover national elections, reporting candidates who have been selected and giving background descriptions of them? Do you know that minor policians are often mentioned in local and ethnic media when they meet foreign VIPs or help citizens with problems? Can you please tell me anything notable about this person, other than having received the same sort of coverage as other local councillors and prospective parliamentary candidates? TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable != "standing above the crowd". Notable means having been the subject of significant coverage by third-party sources. If other candidates received coverage, they are notable too. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does he stand above the crowd of other local councillors and unsuccessful parliamentary candidates? TFD (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. The != symbol means "is different" . I will rewrite: Being notable does not mean "stand above the crowd". --Cyclopia ^talk 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another politician debate that touches on the difficult question of competing notability guidelines. WP:POLITICIAN would say he's not notable. The GNG would say he is. In my view (I stress in my view because people can legitimately disagree with this), these questions should be resolved by bearing two points in mind. First, they are only guidelines; neither takes precedence over the other. Secondly, both only confer presumptions not guarantees of notability and inclusion. In light of those two points, it is my view that we should balance the extent to which the subject meets one guideline against the extent to which he fails the other. He fails WP:POLITICIAN significantly. He passes GNG marginally if at all. Thus any presumption conferred by the GNG here is weak, and is rebutted by the subject's clear lack of notability according to the community's standards for members of his profession.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is insightful but it is mostly based on a false assumption. POLITICAN and GNG are not "competing" at all. WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right. (emphasis mine) - This means that the basic presumption is given by passing one of the guidelines. A subject can be notable by passing WP:POLITICIAN only and not WP:GNG, and viceversa. Also, the article doesn't seem in conflict with WP:NOT or WP:BLP, so I see no reason to rebuke the presumption. I disagree with the fact that GNG is passed marginally, given the number of sources about the subject presented above. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to lawyer on this too much - because I don't think there is a right or wrong answer - my attention is focused on the words "presumed" and "can also" above - ie can also does not mean "is notable".--Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Neutral The subject's notability is borderline at best. Many of the links above come from the same source: The Manchester Evening News. They are treated as a single source with regards to notability. Redirecting to a page about his political party or election would be prudent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethlock99 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2010
Keep per Cyclopia Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

St. Nazaire (film)

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

Procedural nom: Original prod was: Can not be referenced, verging on speculation. The only reference is to IMDB, which is also scant of references. A quick Google search reveals but references or replicas of the IMDB entry. We are not IMDB

I agree with that. Deproded by IP........ Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per simply being TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Zzuuzz as A7 (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changle Products & Services

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

CSD and Deprodded (actually the CSD is still live). I agree completely with the original prod: "written like an advertisement". Nothing to indicate notability. A clear prod abuse, no notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are decent arguments made by editors on both "sides" here and it seems that the analysis of a subject against WP:ATHLETE is more subjective than perhaps it is intended to be, but the majority of !votes seem to in favour of deletion and the majority back up their opinion with appropriate guidelines and interpretations thereof. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton McKinney

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

I created the page, and it turns out he is not notable, and this article needs to be deleted. Appeared on the Ultimate Fighter, but lost his fight and was eliminated. RapidSpin33 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle for a similar explanation. As per WP:ATHLETE, this BLP qualifies and has notability for being in a very notable MMA television show, as well as a notable event in destroying a rival competitors' nose. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has only a handful fights, nearly all in non-notable, local promotions (Cage Warriors is borderline to me); therefore, IMO, does not compete on the "fully professional level" of the sport as per WP:ATHLETE. Appeared on a reality TV show and gets eliminated in the first round, also not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the three fights were PROFESSIONAL fights means that he fits the criteria. Also, he's fought at the highest level of MMA (UFC in the Ultimate Fighter). He totally meets criteria and is therefore notable and should be kept. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE says a person must "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (emphasis mine). Three fights in local promotions, IMO, does not qualify as fully professional. If it were, then the yahoo who fights every weekend at the VFW for $50 is also a notable professional MMA fighter. Matches on TUF are exhibition matches and thus, IMO, are not fully professional level matches. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you of anyone should realise who farcical the "exhibition" tag for TUF actually is. The only reason for it is so they don't have to realise the results. It's still a professional bout, even if it isn't recorded on permanent fight records. Also, with the athlete section, it's if they've competed at a notable show. McKinney hasn't, with the exception of Cage Warriors, which if I'm right was an American expansion of the English promotion (that is the [now] top promotion in England). Also got to take into account his opponents, for which there are two notables. Now the athlete definition is, as stated, about teh notability of the organisation competed in. UFC/TUF is the top level. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) The vote by TreyGeek was canvassed, as RapidSpin only invited him to vote on this matter. As such, it should probably be disregarded. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked TreyGeek because he is the only person I know on Wikipedia. RapidSpin33 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't ask me! You know me, but I had to find out about this through page navigation because you didn't inform me, as you were supposed to in the guidelines for AFDs. You should also know a few of the names that regularly pop up, such as BrendanFrye or Justinsane15. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know you but I didn't ask because I assumed some bot would tell you. I'm still learning about the rules around here man, calm down. Actually, I've never seen those names. RapidSpin33 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite how it may seem, I am calm, I just wish you'd read WP:ATHLETE as Paraisy, McKinney, Henle and Lynch all pass it, giving them notability. Instead, I'm having to battle to keep these articles. Paraisy shouldn't have even been deleted. 3 vs. 1 isn't consensus in my book. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe he qualifies under WP:ATH, yet. TUF is not the UFC, they're competing for a UFC contract. This means it's really a tryout. I don't consider an athlete to be "fully professional" unless he can make his living as a competitor--that's why minor league baseball players are not generally considered notable. So far I don't see that this guy is there yet. Papaursa (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. They're all under contract, all 14 of them. However, the ones who don't get past the first round are released. They aren't fighting for a contract, as they're already under contract and the quarter finalists are always invited back and get AT LEAST one fight. They're fighting for a SIX FIGURE contract. Therefore, I'd say your argument was void. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Just curious, are they under UFC fight contracts or TV contracts? Either way, that doesn't show that they qualify as "fully professional", at least as I understand it. Papaursa (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A UFC contract is a UFC contract, whether it's for fighters to compete in a numbered event or a Spike event (UFC Fight Nights, The Ultimate Fighter or The Ultimate Fighter finale). All of them are valid contracts, but they are under released clauses, as those who are eliminated in first rounds are released from contracts. Be that as it may, McKinney will highly likely be released, but the very fact he's fought notables and been a part of the UFC, means he passes WP:ATHLETE. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me that he makes enough money just through fighting to support himself, I'll happily change my vote. This isn't personal. Papaursa (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, bit of an awkward one to prove and one that really I can't. Can we prove that for anyone other than saying that it's their full time job? I really don't have any proof, nor do I for the very top MMA fighters. The only reason we know that other MMA fighters are supported have it as a living is the payout figures that are released. Not sure how you'd want me to prove it. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying speedy keep here just broadcasts you're not familiar with AfD, or what speedy keep actually means. There's nothing wrong with this nomination, and it's hardly a speedy keep. That said, because we have such a loose athlete criteria policy (that's how it is), I think this individual meets it. So, run of the mill Keep. It doesn't do your cause any favors to claim "speedy keep" when everyone familiar with this process knows that's absurd. Just add the sources, make the case, and if for some reason the logic doesn't prevail, go to deletion review. But don't exaggerate, it just backfires. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE - as per TreyGeek - Claritas § 16:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

How on earth is 4 vs. 2 consensus? Paralympiakos (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

George Griswold Frelinghuysen (designer)

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

~~Significance not demonstrated. One "source" a simple obituary blub in a minor newspaper, the second source comes up as "not found." Am I missing something? Gattosby (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The New York Times is hardly a minor newspaper; that said, it is a "paid notice", I don't know exactly what that entails. No comment from me on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, A "paid notice" is exactly what it says on the tin - a notice that someone has paid the newspaper to publish, so is no more an indication of notability that an advertisement would be. It's a completely different kettle of fish from an editorial obituary, which is an article about a recently deceased person who the newspaper's editorial staff consider notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was referring to the Palm Beach Post as the "minor newspaper." The New York Times article is not accessible, so it shouldn't even count as a source. Gattosby (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access it, and I'm not an a campus or any other special IP range. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The Palm Beach Post is hardly a minor newspaper. It's not The New York Times, but it has a circulation of well over 100K/day. Horologium (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's from a very notable family, but notability is not inherited. Unless there are sources out there discussing his work with Wanamaker (unlikely) or his personal firm (even more unlikely), he's not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing sufficient evidence of notability. As a rule of thumb, if the only coverage a person received from independent sources is from obituaries - they received none during their life - it's often a good sign they're non-notable. (With obvious exceptions for people who became famous via their death, like Seung-Hui Cho). Robofish (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleteIt's not a regular NYT obit. It's a paid obituary, and they are no more reliable as sources for notability in the times than they are anywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing the provision of any independent source(s). Ty 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Doll

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

Semi-ad (plot summary, mostly) for obscure non-notable film; "references" padded by links to directories and the like Orange Mike | Talk 06:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far too often AFD "findsourses" do not act to offer significant results. However, and as Joe Chill shares, sources do exist and act toward notability. I am myself content that Variety, St. Petersberg Times, The Insider 1, The Insider 2, and a number of others all show proper notability per WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article issues have now been addressed. In my opinion, WP:NF has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of this. Search for the name of the film, and the name of the director, in the Google news search, and you will find coverage. [28] Always do that BEFORE nominating something. Dream Focus 21:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources seem sufficient to keep. nomination is not totally surprising because article was created by someone affiliated with the movie, but it can be improved. (A bit OT: I outed a viral video campaign associated with this movie 2 years ago, see [29], [30]. But even then I noted that this page was spam like.).--Milowent (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G4 - UtherSRG (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MC Lazarus

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

Declining speedy G4 as article is significantly different than the previously AFD'd version. Elevating for a full review. Looks like NN to me. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4, which I've already done once. While the formatting is better, much of the article is word-for-word identical to the previous version. The article should not have been restored by UtherSRG; bad form. --auburnpilot talk 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HelpmefindMYPET

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appear to be independent sources, i.e. this news article and this Reader's Digest write up. They're marginal, for sure, but I think that they're enough to satisfy the GNG. Buddy431 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on companies need more than independent sources. See WP:CORP. The bar has to be set quite high for commercial organisations otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry Company would have a WP page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article failing wp:CORP or other topic related guidelines can still be notable under the General Notability Guideline (extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). I believe that this organization meets that threshold, if only barely. Would it be bad if every Tom, Dick, and Harry Company had a Wikipedia Page, provided they were sufficiently notable and well sourced? Buddy431 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have hoped the WP:CORP is the determinant for notability of a company rather than WP:GNG. For former gives more detail than the latter. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't any subject be notable under the General Notability Guideline? In fact, at wp:N I read that A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right. I believe that this topic is notable because it meets the General Notability Guideline. Buddy431 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The usual way we reconcile the GNG and WP:CORP is that the coverage be substantial and nonpromotional. The two articles cited here are borderline, but I think they just make it. A decision on something like this is not a bright line distinction,, but a matter of judgement, in which arll factors should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The sourcing is horrible... should be a lot better, but I've heard of this and despite the pathetic sourcing I think the underlying article's notable. If in 6 months this isn't sourced any better, I'd be all for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria for inclusion as established at WP:GNG. I've tagged it for rescue to help find better sourcing. Moorsmur (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidelines under WP:GNG. Miyagawa (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and per Buddy431--Would it be bad if every Tom, Dick, and Harry Company had a Wikipedia Page, provided they were sufficiently notable and well sourced? Indeed it would be a great achievement for the encyclopedia.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Ministers-Presidents by longevity

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

List of German Federal Ministers by longevity was deleted at AfD because the list was indiscriminate: it listed ministers by their age of death, but that has no bearing on their occupation during their lifetime. The exact same issue applies here; it should really have been nominated at the same time. Delete for the reasons stated here, and at that other AfD. I42 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I right that this would be analogous to the State Governor of one of the United States? I'm not sure how that's treated on the line between notable and trivial. Mandsford 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of lists about political leaders sorted by list. The german Minister-Presidents are important politicians and I think that the deletation of is only the beginning of the deletation of all of this lists - and yes, that would include lists like State Governors. --Statistician (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. This article is nominated because the selection criteria is arbitrary, not because the subjects are non-notable. Note that we also have List of longest governing German Ministers-Presidents, which is collated by length of service and is non-arbitrary - there is no suggestion, here at least, that that article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no relationship between a person's service as a German Minister or President and his or her age at death.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There might be no relationship between service and age of death, but lifetime definitely influences the evolution of a political mind; so in order to get an evaluation of political decisions in the light of following decades by those politicians who were responsible, lifetime is relevant. Dewritech (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Age at start of service is definitely not indiscriminate. But we're not talking about that - we're talking about age at death, and that happens after the period of service ends. Age at death cannot possibly be of relevance to their service because it is a complete unknown at the time. I42 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biographes about or analytical writings from politicians are probably the more extensive the older these politicians are, so the age of death can be an indicator for the depth of analysis. There are obviously not too many politicians who are able to reflect on their decisions decades later, when they can see long term consequences. So these list is not just some kind of useless cross-categorization but an effective instrument for detecting politicians with broad personal and political experiences. Dewritech (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-enclyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:: If we have Longest living United States Senator, Oldest living United States president, List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives and Oldest living United States governor then I don't see why we can't have lists for their German equivalents. -[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of these lists exist, with subtley different criteria: some are indiscriminate, most are not. The other indiscriminate ones are an irrelevance as far as this nomination is concerned - see WP:WAX. I42 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep:: We have a lot of age related articels about persons in offices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_political_office-holders_by_age and I think this is a try to step for step delete all of them. The delete-loving fraction should think about that their personal intereste isn't the criterion for important or not / interesting or not. --Statistician (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behdad Sami

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behdad Sami. Relisting and semi-protecting because the previous AfD was impossible to close due to the SPA activity. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ABA is a professional league, so the article passes WP:ATH, and being the first Irani--Allworldbball (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)an to play American professional basketball also makes him notable. ^TG_R ✫ 06:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This wikipedia page falls under all pro basketball player athlete guidelines/terms. All references are highly notable including the National Basketball Association (NBA), the American Basketball Association (ABA), and SLAM Magazine. If the NBA recognizes Behdad Sami as a "full" pro athlete and also honors him as the first pro Iranian basketball player in the USA, its highly notable being the NBA is the highest level basketball league in the world. Behdad also falls under Basketball Nobility (4.5) from Wikipedia.--Hoopindreams (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like players are getting a couple thousand USD a month which, while nothing compared to the NBA, is "fully pro" in my book. $20 000 a year isn't great pay, but a player could conceivably live off of it without a second job. Being the first Iranian "pro" basketball player helps (and nearly all the sources do say that Sami is the first Iranian Pro basketball player in the US, even after Hamed Haddadi started in the NBA). On the other hand, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basketball doesn't list the current incantation of the ABA in their list of leagues that automatically confer notability. Still, even if the current ABA is decided to not automatically confer notability, I believe that Sami still passes our notability guidelines, if only barely. Buddy431 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Buddy431, also wanted to add, Behdad has played in more professional leagues other than the ABA, he has played in overseas pro leagues whom are all considered fully pro. Overseas teams pay as much as $8000-100,000 a month and they also include housing, food, and travel expenses. Behdad reportedly signed for $85,000 (116k including bonuses) in 2007 (i have the reference for proof), which still is not the millions the NBA pays, but Euro league teams, teams in Asia pay amazing also for example in Korea, starting rate for a USA basketball player with a nice resume is $15,000 a month. Behdad def. fits all the guidelines and falls under all criteria of nobality as far the USA basketball goes and most definetly falls under overseas pro too. Again, the NBA claims him as full pro and is mentioned in every NBA article regarding Iranian basketball as well as SLAM magazine who is the biggest basketball magazine worlwide.--Hoopindreams (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give the source that he played professionally overseas? Because if so, that would definitely qualify him under WP:AHLETE. Buddy431 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buddy431, in reference(5) on Behdads wiki page, which was originally an article written on ABAlive.com it states, "In 2007-2008, he averaged 17 points and 6 assists with the Gwizzlies before returning to play overseas". Also i have his first contract that he signed in 2007/08 with a SuperLeague team overseas, its a JPEG PDF file but I could email, screenshot, photobucket if needed. Its an official contract with each page stamped and signed by the team and by Behdad himself. Its 8 pages and it includes every bit of information.--Hoopindreams (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep see no reason for deletion.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Behdad Sami made history, what would be the point of deleting anything? Becoming the first of anything in this world deserves a wiki page. Must keep, it would be like re-writing history. All his hard work and everything he has done would be taken away. ABA is full pro, overseas is full pro. He has done both, he falls under all rules and guidelines. . The NBA itself claims him as a full pro and being the first pro iranian basketball player. must keep!!--Allworldbball (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep 19,000 links can't be wrong... but seriously, this does appear to be a notable hoax.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Paul City

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

Not notable, just a silly season story, flash in the pan - WP:N#TEMP & WP:SENSATION refer. Stainless steel cat (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to Keep. Sourcing is thin, but appears to be available. Here's a scholarly article using it as an example (I don't have access to the full text). I imagine that there are more Swedish and Chinese language articles that could also support notability. Buddy431 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "Selected Works" thing really a reliable source? It looks more like an online self-publishing operation, not a scholarly journal of any sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's one of their "Open Access Publication Tools" for non-published works to be put online. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I still suspect that Swedish or Chinese sources could be found, but if they aren't, then we can delete, I guess. Buddy431 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. MacKenzie

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

An article about an academic who appears not to pass WP:PROF, and in addition is completely lacking in third-party sources about its subject. A recent prod and a notability tag were removed without improvement. Most of the "publications" listed here appear to be reviews, and I wasn't able to find more than 2 citations to any of his works in Google scholar, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. There's no evidence that he passes any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As noted above, he doesn't pass the specific criteria at WP:PROF, and without sources, the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Even if all claims made are correct, it doesn't make a case for notability. Fails WP:PROF. LK (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability, no evidence the person actually passes the particular guidelines for academics.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer. I have been trying to source unsourced BLP Economists, but I really did struggle finding anything for MacKenzie. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the relevant criteria for notability found at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Moorsmur (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is obviously a topic of discussion, could you suggest which criteria we ought to be looking at more closely (1-9)? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Scant citability, no significant academic awards mentioned, no journal editorships and nothing else in the record to show satisfying WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created vanity bio. WoS shows 1 article that's never been cited and 5 book reviews, all also never cited. No credible evidence of meeting any other part of WP:PROF – This is an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective TV, Inc.

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

Are TV stations eligible for speedy? I think I'd rather have a consensus deletion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the page, allow me to make the case for keeping the article. The FCC does have a record of this ownership group and the several stations it owns. I posted it as a summary article due in part that the individual stations probably would not have enough individual information between them to write substantive articles for each one in their own right, but TV stations, since they are FCC-licensed, are generally recognized as being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Not to delve too much into informal "tests," but the very similar UHF-TV Inc.'s notability has not been challenged. I thank you for moving this to AFD because I think that far too often administrators jump the gun on speedy deletion requests as soon as an article gets posted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television (though there, it could use a clean up to sound a tad less spammy). Buddy431 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would recommend finding some more sources, but this setup (a company that broadcasts cable channels over the air) seems unusual enough to warrant coverage of the company. And here's one source that could be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree with Metro that it is an unusual set up, it apparently isn't so unusual that it has gathered any significant coverage outside of its own local area in the claimed 30 years of operation. Could find nothing in book sources, no real news sources, and existence and licensing alone do not make it notable, IMHO. Without the significant coverage, it may be interesting, but not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

137th Special Security Operations

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

There are no sources\references and it is extremely short. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_· ·_Contribs_· 04:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An incoherent stub. If it were a coherent stub, it might be another matter. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Move to List of Johnny Cash songs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash Song List

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

Delete. WP is not a collection of lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete.. Per Alan. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good example of a bad list. Geschichte (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a similar list at List of Elvis Presley songs. Elvis Presley discography, Elvis Presley hit singles and Elvis Presley hit albums articles also exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You link to WP:NOT which does not say that "WP is not a collection of lists", but that it's not for lists or repositories of "loosely associated topics". As there is a fairly tight association between the items (songs recorded or performed by Johnny Cash), it's a bit of a stretch to justify deletion of this list. (Although it should be renamed to something similar to the Elvis articles above.) --Canley (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well constructed list relating to one of the giants of modern American music. There is no "Wikipedia is Not a Collection of Lists" mandate, by the way... There is the suggestion that Wikipedia is not the place for lists of loosely associated things, which this example is not. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an indiscriminate list, so this is perfectly acceptable under the content guidelines. rename the article (guideline - Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)) to fit in with other stand alone list of musician songs, btw. riffic (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to List of Johnny Cash songs per naming conventions and wikify.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move as suggested). The only surprise to me is that there wasn't a list of these already. In the case of major artists, it's not unusual to have an article about the business side (e.g., Elvis Presley discography)and the art side (e.g. List of Elvis Presley songs). We have (Johnny Cash discography) and this is a logical supplement. I suppose it could be merged temporarily to the discography, or userfied, but the article's creator is obviously working on this one. I think we can walk the line for awhile as he continues it. Mandsford 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still Standing (ska compilation)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dionisia Pacquiao

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

Non-notable; seems to be a paparazzi target as the mother of a famous boxer. Suggest redirect to Manny Pacquiao. Has been redirected and PRODed previously, but feel it needs further discussion before doing it again. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Manny Pacquiao per nom. Being a mother of a (great) boxer and being a dancing queen is not enough for notability. Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One hitter (smoking)

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

Comment This is far from being a dictionary definition; it gives a photo and examples of its use, rather than simply defining the term. Notability is a different question — which I won't answer, as I'm not sure. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom). Dictionary definition without notability, encyclopedic context, or potential for expansion into a bona fide article. Mjpresson (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can't delete as a dictionary definition: there's certainly room for expansion (history, methods of making, etc.) not appropriate for a dictionary. Is it notable? Not sure. I've found a lot of passing references (news articles, etc.) but no good reliable source about what it is itself. However, I've found one article that cites our article [31], indicating that our article is probably actually useful (as opposed to all of our Japanese train station pages... I know, I know, being a well written, factual, useful article isn't enough to get into Wikipedia). There's also this interesting, though probably not sufficient reference on Fox News in reference to the United Airlines Flight 663 incident (evidently the diplomat was smoking a one-hitter). I suspect that extensive coverage in a reliable source exists, but until it's found, I won't !vote yet. Buddy431 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. You couldn't make this up. No sooner has beloved Fox News made sure the world knows about a WP article explaining what a one-hitter is, than some editor wants to do away with the selfsame article. To get a view of the mindset of that pro-deletion editor, see the edit history and talk page of the article. Content ready to add (once assured it will not be curtly reverted) includes mention and pictures of chillum (of which some are one-hitters), kiseru (Japan), midwakh (middle east), and sebsi (Morocco). Chillum and sebsi are reportedly used mostly with cannabis, kiseru and midwakh mostly with tobacco. "But if it looks like a one-hitter, it is a one-hitter."

Special differences from just any "pipe" include: (a) that by sucking slowly users can vaporize, rather than burn, most of the sifted herb, obtaining more nutrient versus carbon monoxide, and (b) that "side-stream smoke" can be more easily avoided. A crater screen permits using sifted herb for better vaporization; a long flexible drawtube cools vapors before inhalation. (The Qatar diplomat arrested on a plane with a "one-hitter" was conjectured by one correspondent to have been using a midwakh; conceivably he wanted to avoid side-stream smoke. He was caught anyway, "It's the law.")Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mark as a stub. Valid topic, not a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not dictionary – discusses design, use, regional variation, potentially relevant to events (incident). —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Guitars

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

Article fails the guidance of WP:ORG on the basis of poor evidence of impact in independent sources. Fæ (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have included references to a few independant sources, I hope you will agree that the impact of chapman guitars on the guitarist community is significant enough to warrant a page SwampAshSpecial (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statewide academic organizations are little different than statewide athletic organizations, and the junior classical convention and competition received significant coverage. The article has been well developed and if more sources are needed, they can easily be located [32]. Mandsford 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The athletic organizations are full groups in their own right, not chapters of a national organization. Occational minor local news mentions are not notability, nor do they exclude the possibility of a merged list. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP.See my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League. The state articles for the athletic organizations cover a much wider scope, and are a reasonable exception. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comments here for my rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. All the articles about local chapters should be deleted. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." While we should at it we should delete the article National Junior Clasical League state chapters and the two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's very little here, but I'm not going to endorse a deletion on the idea that this can never be developed into a well-sourced article. I'm not inclined to say "keep" so much as "leave these alone". Mandsford 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP.See my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comments here for my rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. All the articles about local chapters should be deleted. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." While we should at it we should delete the article National Junior Clasical League state chapters and the two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could easily be sourced [33] and it's no less notable than any other statewide high school competition. Perhaps we should delete Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association as well, since it is only local in scope? Mandsford 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Occational minor news mentions are not notability, nor do they exclude the possibility of a merged list. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP.See my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League. The state articles for the athletic organizations cover a much wider scope, and are a reasonable exception. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization is notable enough to have a page as they are the ones who coordinate grade school latin activities in the state. Also, I am a bit peeved that I wasn't notified of this debate as it looks like you are trying to do something without input from someone who might be able to help the actual page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the national organization coordinates the states. I apologize for not notifying you, I would I have hoped you were watching the pages if you can help. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gave up when I ended up watching every page when I had so many. The result is I rarely watch these. No harm done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on local/state chapters do not have consensus. Note that the article says absolutely nothing noteworthy about the chapter. Abductive (reasoning) 09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local chapters of a national organization are not generally notable and there is nothing about this chapter to qualify it as notable. Since this is the third such article to come to AfD I did some looking around, and I found that this organization is RIDICULOUSLY overrepresented in Wikipedia. In addition to a dozen or so individual chapter listings, most of then containing nothing of encyclopedic value - stuff like where they had their convention and who their officers are - there is a page called National Junior Clasical League state chapters (sic, with "classical" misspelled) and there are two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League, which has five entries, and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters, which has ten entries. This is CRAZY. None of this is encyclopedic or necessary. The only article that is actually needed is the excellent, existing overview article called National Junior Classical League. Compare this clutter with organizations that are far more noteworthy, such as Kiwanis or Rotary or Key Club or a national fraternity, and you will find NO articles about individual chapters or subdivisions. The whole rats nest should be cleared out leaving a single article, namely National Junior Classical League. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW please note that I am not denying the notability of the National Junior Classical League. I'm sure it is a fine organization and I agree it is notable. I am just saying it should follow the same rules as all the other notable national organizations - and not have articles about individual chapters. (Much less whole categories to list all the articles.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I not making this up; it is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, these weren't stubs until they were cleaned up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP.See my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Illinois Junior Classical League. The state articles for the athletic organizations cover a much wider scope, and are a reasonable exception. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comments here for my rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. Articles about local chapters should be deleted. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." While we should at it we should delete the article National Junior Clasical League state chapters and the two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Junior Classical League

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

Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Better, I suppose that this be taken to the forum than what has happened so far. The basis for the deletion seems to be that a statewide high school academic competition and the organization that oversees it would not be considered notable if it has only local coverage. However, I think that statewide events that bring persons together for an annual competition, such as the North Dakota State Fair, would be notable. Mandsford 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The North Dakota State Fair is not just a local chapter of a national organization, and it could not be easily merged into a chapter list, as WP:CLUB recommends. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope, as we currently define WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comments here for my rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. All the articles about local chapters should be deleted. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." While we should at it we should delete the article National Junior Clasical League state chapters and the two categories, Category:National Junior Classical League and Category:National Junior Classical League State Chapters. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 98

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The section of WP:music referred to discusses unreleased material. This particular demo was released. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also says that albums are generally notable which doesn't mean always. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the album is to be deleted for non-notability than the nomination should be phrased appropriately and the correct rationale should be used. In this case the nominator's rationale is not applicable. This AfD is illegitimate and should be closed as "moot." --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? His is this illegitimate or inappropriately phrased? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the use of the term "demo" in the article text, some easy good faith research reveals that this item later became a commercially-released album. So if you think this commercially released album article should be deleted, then it is illegitimate to say it should be deleted because it is a demo. Seems pretty simple to me. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Five_Iron_Frenzy#Singles. Redirecting on the suggestion from Michig. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Is Dead

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band has an article, and the album's notability comes from its unique origin Wandering Courier (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Five Iron Frenzy. This is a self-released 2-song 7-inch single, not a 'demo album', or even an EP, as stated in the article. Demos are not assumed non-notable, the guideline simply points out that they usually are. No significant coverage, so merge to the band and redirect.--Michig (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I think redirecting this to Before I Self Destruct would be a good idea but that's now an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, You're Right

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

Not properly source (its all primary sources) and to be frank its a from a mixtape. Its a promotional single from the album but its chart position is not notable as it is impossible to source. there really is no need for this page considering it won't grow in size and much of the information is unsourced. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suggest do not delete the page, this have information, just missing a few things.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, part of notability includes size... this article is a stub and unlikely to grow in size and is therefore WP:NSONGS states such articles shouldnt be created.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song is the first single from 50's fourth album, the song also appeared on a mixtape, but that was never intended to be in place of on the album. The album was delayed several times, so the single is notable in that it was eagerly anticipated by fans. The article also shows it was number one on a billboard chart. Not being sourced is not a reason to delete an article especially when said sources could easily be contained. Furthermore compared to many other song related wiki article the article seems about decent length. All in all I say we should keep this one.--Deathawk (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment anticipation for a song is not enoguh to make it notable. neither is saying its compared to other songs its a decent length per WP:Other studd exists. the sources in this article are poor (mainly self-published) and the article is unlikely to grow in size. furthermore simply being released is not enough for notability. being number on bubbling under chart is not even a great chart achievement and since its unsourced it should be removed from the article. bubbling under charts cannot even be sourced credibly without a billboard chart subscription. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Spencer (Irish writer)

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

This appears to be part of a cross-wiki hoax or, at best, promotion of an unpublished non-notable "Guillaume Maguire", a.k.a. "John Spencer". (Cf. sockpuppet investigation at nl:Wikipedia.) Google searches ([34], [35]) turn up no mention of bona fide reliable sources, only several wikis and other open sites such as Wordpress and Amazon customer reviews. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article on nl-wiki recently as hoax. The account was created on nl-wiki and this account placed it elsewhere as well. MoiraMoira (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the german interwiki yesterday (talk) --MBq (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

account created on nl-wiki to perpetuate cross wiki now blocked as well. MoiraMoira (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a hoax. The reference to the Irish Times is faked, just search for it in the Irish Times archive and you will receive zero hits. Dolmen Press never published “alternative travel-guides”, see here for a complete list since 1970 and you will find neither travel guides nor anything by someone called John Spencer. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Smiley

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Mose Giganticus, a band he produces. I'd say delete, but this is a nice and easy way to get out of a quandry. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a vanity page: note that the page was created by someone with both Joseph and Smiley as part of there username. Even if Joe Smiley didn't create the page himself, it seems highly unlikely that this person will become notable at any time in the near future. Deathawk (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external sources. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mavroleon family

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

Unsourced article about a family (some alive, some deceased--BLP prod declined earlier), nothing saying they're notable except that they once owned a lot of ships. —fetch ·comms 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many of the members of said family appear marginally notable: extensive news obituary in the Telegraph (with news stories to boot about his strange death), a few perhaps non-trivial references in a Google Book search, I'm sure there are more. Might be better off having individual articles and linking them, but I say it's a notable family (or perhaps a family with a couple notable members). Buddy431 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Owning a lot of ships" seems like a pretty good qualification for being notable, just like extracting lots of oil, distilling lots of liquor or publishing a lot of books. The fact that there is a family business, ownership and management of which appears to be have been shared among members and handed over from one generation to the next, probably makes it better to begin by treating the family as a whole and then break out any members whose significance goes beyond that. That said, this article is next to incoherent and should probably have at least a good source or two. While the nominator's deletion argument remains invalid, it may perhaps be better to delete it and allow someone else to begin from scratch. --Hegvald (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the family owns a lot of ships, but how many is enough for notability without sources covering them in a whole? —fetch ·comms 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the article should be deleted because it is currently completely unreferenced? I have no problem with that (which is more or less what I said above: delete this unreferenced rubbish and let someone else start from scratch). Or are you saying that you consider it unlikely that such sources (covering a family collectively worth a couple of billion pounds) exist at all? --Hegvald (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable without a doubt. No difficulty in sourcing - I've added a few external links that were easy to find, to make (I hope) a proper stub of it, but there are likely to be a lot more to be added by someone more persistent. Two or three individuals may well merit their own articles as well, but this is an extremely prominent business family that's surely worth a collective article.HeartofaDog (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article looks much better now. HeartofaDog, if you look at Google Books, there are more possibly relevant hits, but they're all "snippet view" or no preview (at least for me). I would be surprised if there weren't Greek and/or paper references in addition to what is easily found on the internet. --Hegvald (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there's bound to be more - I haven't attempted Greek-language sources, but they've got to be there. If I get time I'll see about Google books, but I imagine I'll have the same restrictions as you. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The !voter saying "merge" appears to be arguing for a rewrite. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kandyan jewelry

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

Could easily be merged into Kandyan Kingdom#Culture and Arts, as I cannot find significant coverage to indicate the importance of this particular jewelery. —fetch ·comms 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should rewrite with relate references and links. (wipe 04:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
Keep. Merging to Kandyan Kingdom wouldn't be appropriate because Kandy is still known for its jewellery nearly two hundred years after the end of that kingdom, as can be seen in these books and many of these. The article ahould be moved from the American spelling to Kandyan jewellery, the spelling more commonly used in English in South Asia. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs rewriting and proper sourcing, but a suitable topic in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Aim Fire Tour

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

Non notable concert tour. Sources do not establish any notability, and serve only to advertise the tour dates. Article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete they released their internet song less than a month ago? Clearly fails music and N.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Injustice League

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

Speedy contested, elevating to AFD. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Entertainment Weekly blurb is good enough for me for notability under the GNG. Not sure how reliable Paste Magazine is, but the article certainly counts as significant coverage in an independent (though maybe not reliable) source. Buddy431 (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone puts this term in the search box, isn't it more likely that they are looking for the DC Comics-related article, Injustice League? This band article could be confusing. *** Crotalus *** 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per the question above by Crotalus, the article should be moved to The Injustice League (band) or something similar IF the result of this discussion is to keep. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Entertainment Weekly and Paste Magazine things are not significant coverage. not enough for the GNG. duffbeerforme (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Paste Magazine coverage is trivial, no idea if the Entertainment Weekly story has been updated but it does not mention the band. Falls short of WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters---'Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argiris Karras

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

Unsourced BLP. No coverage in reliable sources provided. (The closest I found was a few mentions on afterellen.com.) Only potentially notable role is on Degrassi: The Next Generation. That role, however, is minor enough to not merit mention in Degrassi: The Next Generation. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work to be brought up to WP standards, but this article is relevant. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is not that the article seems "irrelevant", just that we cannot find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article about Karras. To address the concerns, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which I cannot find. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Degrassi: The Next Generation, the only place where this individual has any sourcable notability.[36] After Degrassi, this fellow seems to have fallen off the planet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources given (except IMDB which lists everyone). No claim made for notability. Fails WP:ACTOR. LK (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article lacks sources, and such is a shame... but available sources would indicate a merge & redirect to where this individual has his notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That search pretty much confirms what I'm saying. You get a number of results, but all of them are from CTV and afterellen.com. A redirect? Maybe. Heck, why not. But what would you merge? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I visit because i find this article mis-classified as "unsourced" when in fact it is sourced. The deletion nominator should update his/her editing to use {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} or {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} as an appropriate tag for articles that are sourced from IMDB. It seems like insular wikipedia jargon to assert that an article is "unsourced" when in fact it is obviously sourced by the IMDB source given in the article. Or if the complaint is that the source is presented as a general source in the form of an external link (which is actually acceptable by my understanding of policy/guidelines), then please use {{nofootnotes}} to complain about lack of specific footnoting. I !vote Keep as I believe the accuracy of IMDB in asserting this person is an actor and appears on the TV shows as reported in IMDB. Deleting the article will just leave a void to be filled by a new article on same person. Better to mark the article for improvement, or to improve it. --doncram (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry the article was mis-tagged. Now back to the subject of its notability. Yes, IMDb is a "source". However, it is not a reliable source. For notability, we need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We do not currently have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, okay. I added a second source to the article, also attesting that he is an actor and acts in the TV series DeGrassi. Do you seriously disbelieve IMDB on that? IMDB is reliable/credible for some information. And, I added the article to WikiProject Canada and I will add mention of this AFD to wt:Canada now. Perhaps both of those steps will attract some editors to fix up the article, but maybe not on short notice. I imagine there is more coverage of Karras in Canadian newspapers and other sources, because he is Canadian and because the Degrassi series is a Canadian TV show. I think it is best to let the article develop. --doncram (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMDb lists pretty much everyone who has any credited part whatsoever in any film or television show. It can be helpful for verification of some facts after notability has been covered off through other sources, but it doesn't prove notability by itself; if it did, we'd have articles on every second sous-grip and best boy and chef's assistant and porn fluffer in the history of film. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters, where his character appear about halfway down. This should be adequate until/unless he gets more roles. PK T(alk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, every regular actor on Degrassi is notable. Tonight's episode was especially pivotal to his career, which established his character as a role model for closeted teens. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, none of them are notable unless and until we have sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article. We still don't have that. We need independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deelte. The significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability does not appear to exist. Nuttah (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shinichi Ikejiri

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. —fetch ·comms 02:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ISBNs for the books, no noteworthy information on the individual, and no reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The lack of ISBNs is irrelevant to this discussion, as the subject died several decades before ISBNs were introduced. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You can verify details about older Japanese books by citing their National Bibliography Number (assigned by the National Diet Library of Japan). I've done so for the article. cab (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One small, trivial note of him here [37]. Of course, I don't speak Japanese so might be missing a lot of stuff but then again this is en.wikipedia. --Savonneux (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NONENG. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable where English sources of equal quality are not available. cab (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as there's been an entire book [38] written and published by a third party on the topic of one of his works Itameru Ashi, as pointed out in the article, I fail to see where the alleged "non-notability" comes from. The National Diet Library catalogue further verifies that the book in question went through a large number of printings for several years after its initial publication [39]. Ikejiri is also discussed in the book "Southern Journey of Showa Writers" [40]. Furthermore I have no reason to disbelieve any of the citations that were already in the article at the time of the nomination or that were added on May 25. cab (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article certainly needs some work to improve its quality, but the references provided from the start appear to at least establish basic notability of the subject. --DAJF (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is evident Mar4d (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a significant figure of Japanese literature. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Black_Angels_(band)#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphene Dream

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

No reliable sources found, fails WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch ·comms 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olorogun Oskar Ibru

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. —fetch ·comms 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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