Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 11

< 10 July	12 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Games in Pittsburgh

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

If Major League Baseball All-Star Games in the Los Angeles Area violates WP:NOTDIR, then so does Major League Baseball All-Star Games in Pittsburgh. I say if one stays, they both stay . . . if one is deleted, they both should be deleted. --Andyhi18 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is not WP:LISTCRUFT; see my explanation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball All-Star Games in the Los Angeles Area. Change to delete. There are individual articles on those games already. Pointless to have this. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~If the explanation for why this isn't listcruft is that it's Pittsburgh rather than the Los Angeles area, I'm not convinced.~~ In both this and the other article, there not much information imparted other than that we have links to articles about the All-Star games that were hosted in those areas. Short version-- the game was played in Pittsburgh in '44, '59, '74, '94 and '06. There is some trivia that's relevant to Pittsburgh itself, some mildly interesting a bicentennial celebration in 1959, and Pittsburghers singing along to O Canada, and some not (the Pirates are "the first team that has not moved to have hosted the game in three different stadiums"). Mandsford 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I was thinking of a "weak keep" vote, but I just don't see anything so special about having an ASG in Pittsburgh that necessitates a page that simply lists the links with a brief description of each game. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was just about to AFD this. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's superfluous at best. Not to knock Pittsburgh or anything, but I never understood what was so special about the games being in Pittsburgh that it necessitated a separate article. What about the games played in New York or Chicago or St. Louis? A similar article with Los Angeles as the focus was also recently deleted. Bottom line: I don't see anything this article (or any article about ASGs in a particular area) could contain that could differentiate it from the individual game articles. --Highway99 (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons stated above. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everyone else. I don't see what is so special about Pittsburgh that they deserve a special article. This article seems to elevate Pittsburgh and/or the Pirates above all other baseball teams and markets/cities. It was probably made by someone who loves the Pirates or Pittsburgh and has no special reason for people outside of that area. Crd721 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBC logos

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

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was created to keep NBC from being long. Georgia guy (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sub-page of main NBC page. Well done article which contains information apt to be of interest to Wikipedia users, thereby improving the Wikipedia experience. Whatever sourcing problems exist lie well within the principle of "correct-not-kill." Carrite (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you can find sources, please do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not look like a valid excuse to use 9 non-free images. Since none of it is source, how do we know any of it is valid and verifiable critical commentary? Mike Allen 05:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article's been in existence for 5 years and the best sourcing we can come up with is five sources, two of which are primary sources, a fan site, and another encyclopedia? Umm, no. No justification for this overuse of fair use images, and it all smacks of original research. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "other encyclopaedia" is written by Les Brown, erstwhile television editor for Variety and media critic for the New York Times. You don't have much of a leg to stand on in questioning its reliability. And what's your justification for using "we" here? Where and how did you look for sources? You haven't mentioned doing that at all. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I have to have actually worked on an article in order to vote on whether it should be deleted it or not? I didn't know that rule. I strike my vote. Thanks for the heads up, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you don't have to have worked on the article to vote on it. Whether you work on it or not, !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. Then my point stands; if we (the community) haven't been able to find any more sources in five years than what is shown in this article, then this article is very unlikely to ever have significant sources to support it. And Uncle G, the one cite to an encyclopedia supports one sentence only, and that to support a release date of a particular logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you demonstrate what "thorough attempts" have been made to look for sources in those five years? If you can't, then your argument is just WP:NOEFFORT. DHowell (talk)
Comment We should salvage this article and in order to do that we will need less original research and more verifiable sources. Otherwise, I can see why this article could be deleted. Bossanueva (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There were five references in the article when it was nominated, including a television encyclopedia, so the nominator's claim that "not a single section is referenced" is quite dubious. I've also discovered that there are plenty of contemporary sources, such as the periodicals Broadcasting and Variety, which are not freely available on the web, which cover network advertising campaigns, trademarks, and logos. I am confident that many sources are out there, but I am not confident they will all be found by someone just sitting behind a computer screen, at least not without access to Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. And information about NBC logos is quite verifiable, at the very least by primary sources such as video recordings and printed advertising materials, as well as numerous independent sources. "NBC peacock" alone gets thousands of book search results to look through, and one can find a few book and magazine sources about the twin trapezoids as well. DHowell (talk)
- If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons are popular culture, verifiable and factual. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia.AWHS (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale is completely incorrect - there are several sources listed, including a print encyclopedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Broadcasting Company logos

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

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the NBC logos above, this is a useful addition to the history of a very important American company. Separation from main page helps keep things short enough to be read, presence on Wikipedia adds interest and information. Any sourcing issues seem clearly a "correct-not-kill" matter... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you can find sources, please do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've made a modest start at finding some news and book sources for this article, by just from a few things I've found from a couple of Google searches. I've also discovered that there are plenty of contemporary sources, such as the periodicals Broadcasting and Variety, which are not freely available on the web, which cover network advertising campaigns, trademarks, and logos. I am confident that many sources are out there, but I am not confident they will be found by someone just sitting behind a computer screen, at least not without access to Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. And by the way there were references in the article when it was nominated, even if they were just websites. And information about ABC logos is quite verifiable, at the very least by primary sources such as video recordings and printed advertising materials. DHowell (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft ~~made~~ edited by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd better watch your baseless accusations. Take another look at who created this page and I suggest you either retract your accusation of sockpuppetry or bring forth some evidence, if you have any. DHowell (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corrected. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The same comment applies to the 9 other slogans listed for WP:AfD on this log WP:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_11. This is WP:POPCULTURE. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias and there is general consensus (I believe) to encourage this type of content. The slogans are verifiable and factual - and of genuine interest (to some). The logo and slogan/ tagline can be verified at the Internet archive. Finding refs and citations for these slogans is something that can be fixed. WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability for this type of material can be verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources.AWHS (talk) 12:11, 17 July 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 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of television news music packages

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

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, copied straight (potentially copyright violation?) from [1]. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bare list with hardly any context to explain what the entries represent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only useful information in this is the link to theme music that one can listen to [2], and I think that's already in television news music. It's the classic indiscriminate list. Mandsford 14:53, 12 July 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. Sandstein 06:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple Inc. slogans

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

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apple's marketing is quite notable, being the subject of numerous reliable sources. I found no difficulty in providing a citation for the first entry and improving the rest just seems to be a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you can find sources, please do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. You're the one who needs to produce some evidence to support your hand-waving assertions. AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any evidence at the article's talk page that you have engaged with the topic per our deletion policy. This just seems to be a superficial drive-by. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reference? That's it? That's all you could find? That shows me the page definitely doesn't meet WP:V. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many thousands of sources out there. I cited just the first entry because it was the first, not because that was all that is possible. I specifically stated that there were many sources and you have misrepresented my statement. To confirm the truth of my statement, I have added some more sources - easy work which you could have done yourself if you had performed the due diligence required by our deletion process. In your nomination, you stated that the article had no sources. This was also a misrepresentation as the article had two sources at that time, both of which stand up when checked. It seems that you are making false claims due to lack of proper care. This is disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of finding sources lies on those who insist that they exist. The only hand-waving going on here is that you're trying to assert that finding a single source is enough to assume that "thousands" exist. Please assume good faith and check the tone of your arguments for WP:CIVIL. SnottyWong ^speak 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque. This is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of competence and accuracy. You too misrepresent the facts. I found thousands of sources. I cited first one as a sample and then several more. There were already sources in the article. Please argue from evidence not from faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to argue from evidence if you would supply some. If you have thousands of sources at your fingertips, certainly it would be easier to provide a few rather than continuing to argue and avoid the issue. In particular, I think we need some sources that discuss these slogans as a group, not a thousand sources that mention each slogan individually. SnottyWong ^yak 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided numerous sources and amongst these are sources which discuss multiple slogans. Your demand for exhaustive sourcing is unreasonable when you yourself do no work. Please see WP:BATTLE which indicates that you should not make demands of this sort. See also WP:INSPECTOR and WP:SEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have provided each discuss 2 or 3 slogans, at best. I have not seen any sources which discuss and analyze "Apple slogans" as a group, where "Apple slogans" is the main subject of the source, or is at least significantly discussed and not just mentioned in passing. You are attempting to substantiate the notability of the slogans by piecing together multiple sources which mention them separately, which is a kind of synthesis. I am not making demands of you, I am simply suggesting that your argument is lacking evidence to back it up, and that if you'd like your argument to make more sense you should probably prove that such sources exist. SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing our synthesis policy by making a false claim that the article is constructing a synthetic conclusion from multiple sources. The article does nothing of the kind - it just lists the stated slogans in a matter-of-fact way and there is no conclusion or theory stated. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument. Therefore, it is a personal attack against SnottyWong. T3h 1337 b0y 02:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Sources do exist, and Apple's advertising campaigns have received quite a bit of coverage over the years. —fetch ·comms 21:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Colonel Warden in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No doubt sources can be found to substantiate the existence of each of these slogans singularly, however none of the sources found thus far establish the notability of these slogans as a group. Each source listed in the article at this point appears to only talk about one or two of the slogans, usually mentioning them in a largely trivial way. None of the sources are about the collection of slogans as a whole. SnottyWong ^prattle 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news media does talk about Apple's ad campaigns at times. Think Different even has its own article. Dream Focus 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Could potentially be resurrected as "History of Apple advertising" or something similar.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A title change such as you suggest would be performed using the move function, not by deletion. Our deletion policy is that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 July 2010

This is a common argument of yours, and it is unhelpful in most cases, including this one. The article is already at AfD, and attempting to invalidate the discussion every time someone suggests that the article be moved, merged, or redirected (basically anything other than keep or delete) is not going to accomplish anything. The opinion of SharkxFanSJ is that the article should be deleted, but he is offering an alternate solution to the problem and a possible option of keeping all or part of the article under a different title. Perhaps you should review the AfD Guide to Deletion more thoroughly, particularly the part which shows that !votes other than Keep or Delete are perfectly valid. SnottyWong ^converse 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AFD is to control the use of the delete function which is specially restricted. This is a simple binary decision which becomes quite confused if it is muddled with content-editing considerations which have infinite variety. In this case, User:SharkxFanSJ seems to suggest that we should move some or all of the content to the new title, History of Apple advertising. This is a reasonable suggestion but would not require use of the delete function. The point of the policy cited is that, when we are are able to improve the article by ordinary editing then we do not delete it. If we delete the article then it is gone and resurrection is complicated by the loss of the edit history and the resulting lack of attribution per our licence. Please see WP:MAD for a fuller explanation. So, I comment on this in detail lest the closing admin misunderstand the headline !vote of Delete and not realise that the user is, in fact, suggesting that we retain some or all of the material, which would be a variety of Keep. Misunderstandings of this sort are sadly common here and so you can expect to see this explained repeatedly. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of AfD is a binary decision, then you should probably gain consensus to change the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes, which offers quite a few different decisions than keep or delete. For the record, this editor's !vote was to Delete, first and foremost, with a suggestion that it might be possible to salvage some of the content by moving it to an article with a different scope. I don't see why this is so confusing for you. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because move and delete are contrary functions - trying to have your cake and eat it. If we want to do something with this article then we just use ordinary editing functions. Simples. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - almost entirely unverifiable. Claritas § 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that every entry that I've looked at has been easy to verify, your vote seems absurdly counterfactual. Please provide some examples of unverifiable content and explain why we can't just remove that and leave the verified material. Our editing policy, states clearly that we should try to preserve what we can. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have only added 9 referenced to the 100+ (but probably more) slogans on the page, it seems like you are doing alot of hand waving then actually adding these references you have claimed to have found. If you have references, add them already...otherwise, you are just putting up alot of smoke and mirrors to cover up a really bad excuse for an article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some particular slogan that you would like sourcing? Sources are not required for everything in Wikipedia - only for disputed or extraordinary statements. Many or most articles in Wikipedia have fewer sources than this one and we don't delete them all - we retain them for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...all of them? Otherwise, they are unsourced, can't be confirmed and should be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be satisfied if you produced a source or two which establish the notability of Apple advertising slogans in general, rather than producing a thousand sources which prove the existence of each individual slogan. Such sources would prove that this article is not in violation of WP:NOTDIR, and therefore should be kept. Sourcing every last entry, however, is not a necessary prerequisite for keeping an article at AfD, Neutralhomer. The only sources we need are those that prove the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll interpret your silence as an admission that you cannot find any such sources as described in my comments above. SnottyWong ^chatter 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means there limit to how much time I'm prepared to waste on this volunteer effort - please see WP:BATTLE and WP:INSPECTOR. But I have added yet another source which, as part of a general history of Apple, lists a bunch of slogans in much the same style that we do here. It's Alex Brooks (2006), Happy 30th Birthday, 1996 – 2006, World of Apple — Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable sources. If we were to remove all the unsourced ones (which we should immediately do if this does get kept anyways), we wouldn't have much of anything. Anything remotely useable (and just listing slogans isn't actually a narrative that's useful) can be incorporated into Apple Inc. advertising or even Apple design motifs if it fits. Some slogans can be notable ("Think Different" as we can see) but that's better here that done this way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. It seems that we have a large number of articles about Apple advertising and that this list is a navigation spin off from them per WP:SIZE. As several slogans have their own article such as Get a Mac and Think Different, the list serves a useful navigational purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say let's agree to disagree on whether there's a size problem on the other articles, but I'm glad to be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the articles should be considered as a set. If some consolidation or restructuring seems appropriate then this can be performed by ordinary editing - merger and the like. It is our editing policy to keep the good bits such as the sourcing which the list contains. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete: wikipedia is not a directory. No sources to establish the notability of this list topic. And even then, the entries are inappropriate, borderlining on promotional material for the company covered. 24.114.232.33 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Type almost any one of these slogans into a Google News Archive search and I'll bet you come up with a few reliable sources for each one. Especially the iPod and iPhone ones. Colonel Warden only came up with 9 sources because he probably only had time to source the first 9 entries. And the notability of Apple's slogans as a whole should be as plainly obvious as is the notability of the advertising campaigns of any large company. DHowell (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our core policy states "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Please tell us of the reasonable efforts which you have made in accordance with this and our other policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are trivially findable. Neutralhomer, this is not it works. If you can't be bothered to {{sofixit}}, then tag it {{cn}}. "Afd is not for cleanup". You don't challlenge people to "provide me with those 87 sources or else I demand this article should be deleted", this is considered disruptive. Your reasons are WP:VAGUEWAVE, at least think different and get a mac are notable to the point or having their own article, several others could, it is not unverifiable and it is not wp:original research, I refer to the in a nutshell.

10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 10:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons are popular culture, verifiable and factual. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia.AWHS (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the references [3] for this page is a book (written by a university professor) with a central theme being the analysis of one of these slogans. Therefore WP:Notability is beyond doubt. They almost certainly all pass the WP:V criteria. There are undoubtedly other references, many of these are famous.AWHS (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Apple Inc. advertising. I note that we do have several other articles like this - Coca-Cola slogans, for example - but I don't think any of them are really encyclopaedic content. All this is is what the name says - a list of slogans. This content would be better covered as part of the general article on Apple advertising, which could mention the most notable and influential slogans without indiscriminately listing every single one. Robofish (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apple advertising slogans are a notable part of pop culture and a list of then fully comports with the WP:LIST policy. Admittedly, the article lacks sourcing, but that's a separate issue. Wikipedia's verifiability policy allows (if not encourages) the deletion of most of the article pending proper sourcing, but the topic is notable and a list should be kept even if it has to be stubbed for the time being.--Pink Bull 23:12, 18 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Network Ten slogans

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

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of hard work has[[User:Ed gone into this list of slogans. Please do not delete this article. Eddie Blake 14:18PM (AEST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to retain this article. JMRAMOS0109 4:37 PM (PST)
Keep. For a number of reasons.To a degree this is WP:POPCULTURE. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias and there is general consensus (I believe) to encourage this type of content. The slogans are verifiable and factual - and of genuine interest. Look at the Internet archive for the ten network. Finding refs and citations for these slogans is going to take work but that can be fixed. Some good and verifiable / independent sources even mention controversy [4] so therefore I believe that this is WP:NOTABLE. The same comment applies to the List of Nine Network slogans which is also up for WP:AfD. AWHS (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem with this article is, that it is just a simple list of slogens and there's no other meaningful content. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture states that "Popular culture is often viewed as being trivial"... AWHS (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —AWHS (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure these are as notable as the American network slogans, but sources will be even harder to find because Australian reliable sources (especially older ones) do not have as much of a web presence as American sources. DHowell (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I picked one entry at random and checked it, the "Keep Your Eye On The 0" and had no difficulty verifying it at [5], so I will add a "Cite web". WP:AFD states that "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.". Clearly this article is lacking refs but WP:SOFIXIT please instead of nominating for AfD. AWHS (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources, by all means source it. Doesn't make trival slogans notable though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a citation for the current tagline, these are not hard to find. This article can easily be fixed with appropriate refs. AWHS (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hearing alot of "there are references", but not seeing any (but ~~a select few~~ one) being added. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting these would seem like a cliched example of systemic bias. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 10:42, 17 July 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 00:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anger II

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

Hoax. Although it is true that there was a lot of material left over from St. Anger, there is no evidence that a release of any of this material is pending. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL, plus WP:OBVIOUS. Come on, the "album artwork" is an "own work" creation by the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and a bordeline WP:HOAX. Even the references in the article don't mention St. Anger II (or any variant) as being the new album title (this is rather bizarre though). Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. I didn't create the article, just the artwork, but delete it anyways. Stuntman Steve (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. Yeah delete this, Stuntman Steve tried to save the article from descending into further stupidity, but it's just a stupid hoax page and the quicker it's gone the better. Benf199105 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Simon^KSK 14:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could probably be speedy deleted as a very obvious hoax but the result of this AfD will be the same a week later. WP:HOAX is the key here but believe it or not WP:CRYSTAL might not even apply because this item is not in the future. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CHRYSTAL. If they actually come out with the album we can recreate the page. Christina Silverman (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no legitimate evidence in that news article.

Could it be possible? Maybe, but I think someone got overly excited and made this article. 24.226.60.46 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 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 01:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetDog

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

Fails WP:N. Zilkane (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could not find anything that provides any significant coverage in any reliable sources that can show notability here. I will note to others not to confuse this for the Internet porn blocking software of the exact same name. –MuZemike 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamasutra article would be useful if there were other reliable sources, but given that most sources are primary, trivial, or not established as reliable I don't see how this could pas WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 13:15, 13 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 01:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Baracy

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:BLP1E. Nymf _hideliho! 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beauty pageant contestants are notable, there are groups, templates, categories, and WikiProjects related to their use. There are hundreds of biography articles for beauty pageant contestants and this one is no less notable than any of the others. Unless you are going to delete every single article about a beauty pageant contestant, leave it alone. Ejgreen77 _talk 19:20, 11 July 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major beauty pageant winners at the state level are commonly considered notable; nearly half the competitors listed at Miss America 2009 have wikilinks to their own articles. I have added references to this article to demonstrate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 17 July 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.

Laique Rehman

The result was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China Hong Kong Society for Trenchless Technology

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

notable? i dunno, kinda doubt it. discussion is nice, what's your opinion? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources found in either English or Chinese Google (aside from one-line event reports like [6] and trivial mentions in laundry lists of organisations). No inherent reason to think they're notable either. cab (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so short, wouldn't it be easier to mention them in the Trenchless Technology and delete this article? Loiathal (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail [WP:CORP]] with no significant third-party coverage that I can find. They organize a conference every couple of years. It's not enough. An article on ISTT (the International Society for Trenchless Technology) mught be in order. Herostratus (talk) 06:14, 16 July 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 01:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United kingdom radio

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

Non-notable internet radio station; contested prod. You would think a name like this would at least come up in Gnews, but it doesn't. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be very minor radio show. Can find no reliable sources. (Article should redirect to Radio in the United Kingdom). Christopher Connor (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, non-notable. Piano tech 23:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like others have stated, no reliable sources for verification and establishing notability. Bossanueva (talk) 22:38, 12 July 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 speedy delete on WP:BLP grounds. The timing of this is just blatant. Mosaheed (talk · contribs) creates a puff piece in November 2009. The fraud trial hits the news on 2009-12-12. One day later, Mosaheedvictim (talk · contribs) is here turning this into a request for Wikipedia readers to telephone the police. Then the two of them edit war about it. The reports of the trial, on CBC News, the Globe and Mail, and elsewhere, say nothing useful for a biography. Obviously, given the accusations, no content supplied by Mosaheed (talk · contribs) can be considered to be even remotely trustworthy. The content supplied by Mosaheedvictim (talk · contribs) is no better, either and is wholly unencyclopaedic. There is zero content and zero edit history here from anyone that can be remotely trusted or that is worth preserving. Uncle G (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Saheed

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

Unsourced BLP with conflicts of interest running amok in the history. It was recently cleaned up, but as a result has been chopped down to zero independent sources (the only sources are not only not independent, but are also just "coming soon" pages). Additionally, I don't feel this person meets WP:GNG (and appears to have some indications of a WP:BLP1E). Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Yworo (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 11 July 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 Already deleted by speedy G7. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torijutsu

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable sport. Can find only two google hits on this subject, one of which is Wikipedia. When challenged the creator of the article responded on the talk page that the reason why there are so few google hits is because the sport has only just been invented. role^player 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a new martial art and does not have many hits on google yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shukokaifist (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC) - transferred from the talk of this project page. -- role^player 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which is all the more reason for this article to be deleted. See the reply I left to your comment on the article's talk page. -- role^player 18:28, 11 July 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; no reason for discussion to continue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted 3

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

Appears to be non-notable gay porn film. Article has no sources except for own website and IMD. Doesn't appear notable enough for article. Also contains

Most think of Mason as a piggy, hungry bottom boy. But he's also one hell of a top with a big thick uncut cock. Mason's proven himself to be a hot recruit, and we close out his Drafted series with one of the hottest scenes he's ever done yet!

Christopher Connor (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Christopher Connor (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:FILMNOT, and probably would even qualify for WP:CSD#G11 (spam). Same goes for the other recent creations by the same editor: Getting Levi's Johnson, The Velvet Mafia Part 1, and The Velvet Mafia Part 2. Hqb (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be speedied as both spam and copyvio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 13 July 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 01:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regina C. Arevalo

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

WP:N, WP:V. Can't find reliable secondary sources for the editor or the tabloid itself, a few wikis, a few mirrors. Looked through Gweb, Gnewsarchives, Gbooks. Unsourced for 2+ years. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I also searched for references to verify article content and notability and could find nothing substantial. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything reliable. Mostly Facebook or other stuff, nothing reliable, doesn't seem to be notable either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 16 July 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 and move to Vardevaq. Withdrawn, given evidence from cab. Thank you. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vardough

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

Article on a village with no references. I was unable to find any verification of its existence. Of course, if verification of it arises, it can be speedy kept. Otherwise it should be deleted. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 17:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say "Of course it's notable, it's a village." But so far I can't find any evidence of a place with this name. There does appear to be a small village approximately 5 miles from Miyaneh with the Latin character spelling of Vardevaq." [7] If this is the place the article creator meant, I wouldn't be opposed to Rename Vardevaq.--Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably alternate transliterations. No way to be sure however without a reliable source. I would be fine with the creation of Vardevaq Jujutacular ^T · C 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd guess that this is Vardevaq (or Vardūq, as the GEOnet Names Server calls it) based on the location, but unless there's a source, that can't really be proven. Since practically everything in the article is unsourced/unverifiable anyway, nothing will be lost by deleting this article and creating one for Vardevaq. (If anyone finds a source for the name Vardough, the article should just be moved.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Place with this name seems to exist, there's a Persian Wikipedia page on it [8] and a reasonable number of "natural" GHits mentioning it in Persian(e.g. not just endless lists of placenames copied and recopied from geographic databases, like in the English hits). "Vardough" is a slightly odd but certainly reasonable transcription of that (transcribing "و" as "ou" instead of "u", and "ق" as "gh" instead of "q"). cab (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take your word for it on the transcription, since I don't speak Persian; I'm changing my !vote to Keep and rename based on that evidence. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:33, 12 July 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 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Sinigoj

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

Evening. I am concerned that this does not meet the criteria for notability. There is no information provided by anything other than the beliefof notability of the subject himself, who appears to have created the article. "International" is not expanded upon and only work in native country is listed. Zero google or google news hits of relevance that I can see, no third party information to comment on or confirm notability or nature of the mentioned seminars and workshops. I believe borderline failure of GNG, and seek consensus. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertisement. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Even the claim of notability in native country is a self-reference - there is zero third-party information about the "academy" he speaks of. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Checked Slovenian news sources and search engines and found only some stories about him being a IT forensics expert and nothing about him being a NLP expert (besides self references). Luka666 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 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 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavar

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

Article is unreferenced and does not meet WP:FILMNOT. I had also previously tagged the article with a PROD but the author deleted it, so I'm listing it here. elektrik SHOOS 16:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shelved film. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:09, 13 July 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. Seems like a hoax to me. —fetch ·comms 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Cetkovic

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

This actor's main accomplishment is an appearance in a film which hasn't been released. She may well become notable when her film comes out... or she might not... or maybe the movie will never come out. In any case, I think we should wait until after she is notable to write an article about her. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and basically what the person above me said. elektrik SHOOS 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clearly unnotable and fails even the speedy criteria, and highly likely a hoax as there is no such film as the one claimed, nor is there any verification this person exists at all. Appears to be some one just making fake articles about themselves. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 July 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. Seems like a hoax to me. —fetch ·comms 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cursed library

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

This movie does not exist yet; if and when it does, we'll be better able to determine whether it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Article author also created an article on the star of the movie -- a 13-year-old actress/pop star, of whom Google hasn't heard of. Pending sources, what we have here is two kids pretending to be rock stars, borrowing dad's camcorder. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. No verification such a film is even in production nor does the actress exist in any notable fashion (beyond as the IP notes, some kids playing around). Fails WP:V and WP:NFF as there is absolutely no confirmation of it at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 11 July 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 (G3, hoax) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Anaghwilliam

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

Sending this to AfD rather than speedy or prop'd because if I'm seeing this correctly I'd like to recommend not just deletion but salting. Not only can I find no references myself via Google News/Books/Web for teh person (other than WP mirrors, etc.) but of the sources shown, the ones I can search via Google Books also do not include the name of the author. Looking at the article history, it was created and largely maintained by two accounts that have edited only this article and articles linking to it, at least a COI, but quite possibly part of the hoax I believe this to be. Looking at the talk page for the original author, I see an indication that it was marked for speedy deletion because of G4 (prior deletion), I don't know if that was AfD or what. Looking at the article on the company that the article claims the subject was an investor in, I see that George Martin's partner in building that company was someone with an entirely different name.

Anyway, I think it's not just an unsourcable article, but an unsourcable and likely hoax article that to all appearences has been deleted at least twice in the past. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the relevant deletion debate was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Anaghwilliam. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked the deleted article George Anaghwilliam, and it's indeed largely the same ... except for a different year (but same day) of birth. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Clearly a hoax. The "sources" listed in the article have nothing to do with its purported subject, and none of the google searches turn out anything relevant and verifiable. Nsk92 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last claimed reference (which is an URL and not a book) nowhere mentions "Charles Anaghwilliam". That alone is enough for me: Speedy delete as a hoax and re-creation of a deleted article, and protect. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:56, 12 July 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 01:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Levenson

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

Subject appears to be non-notable ordinary news presenter at CFTO-TV. Only reference is her page at the news company. Cannot find substantial coverage of her alone. SPA creator. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable T.V news reporter outside of CFTO-TV's broadcast range. Tempted to add speedy delete under A7 for non-notable person.Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 16:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local notability only, no third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. GregJackP Boomer! 17:58, 14 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DXDM

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

Appears to be non-notable radio station in Phillipines. Article has no sources. Hard to find info on it but few Google hits. Created by possible sockpuppet (says so on their page). Many other articles like this and unsure of their notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like American and UK radio stations, Phillipine radio stations enjoy the same notablity and the precedence set in previous AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BCAST says that "local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable". DXDM-FM is a part of Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation's network. — C M B J 20:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Redirect to DWDM-FM (if we can find WP:RS): While licensed stations with their own programming are presumed notable, there is no evidence here that this station has ever been anything but a rebroadcaster without its own history or programming. Not only are there not that many references, but there are Google pages with different frequencies and cities for this callsign. The current version of the Wikipedia page Eagle Broadcasting Corporation implies that DXDM is basically a relay for 95.5 DWDM-FM Quezon City. Older versions of the Catholic Media Network on Wikipedia used to show DXDM as being "Spirit FM 88.7 - DXDM 88.7 Kidapawan City, North Cotabato". And [9] / [10] shows it as "88.7 Kidapawan/Daang Maharlika". The 95.5 webpage is especially unhelpful — it refuses to show anything unless you agree to an Adobe license. My guess is that this station used to be a Catholic Media Network relay, and is now a Dazzling Music relay that should be redirected to DWDM-FM, but I haven't even found enough sources to do that, and the DWDM-FM article itself claims that station is off the air. Replacing the article with "DXDM is a radio station in the Philippines that may or may not be a relay of someone else, and nobody knows what city or frequency it's really on." doesn't really make sense. --Closeapple (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per 2 comments. Maybe it's off the air same as DWDM-FM. - Gabby 14:16, 14 June 2010 (PST)

Delete It may be inherantly notable but if we can't find any sources then its also unverifiable which is a policy and trumps GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [11] Sources 88.7 and Eagle TV ownership (page 806) as of 2006. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2010 News article gives a location. [12]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2009 article explaining the plan for programming for DXDM and other stations. [13] --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:40, 19 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likhterman

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

Contested prod. Subject is Russian doctor (1902 - 1967). Not wholly convinced of notability so bringing to afd. Could not find any reliable sources but that may be because subject died a long time ago. Article mentions a book about subject but could find mention of it. Obscure mention in the book World directory of physical medicine specialists. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient achievements and sourcing to merit inclusion. Article is not written to style, including in particular the title, which needs to be changed. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who has launched the article has been in touch with me and I will be making a couple changes, including the title. Please give this article a little time, new editor from Russia. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm working on the piece, I see that Likhterman is the subject of a book published in Moscow in 2002: A Man of Light. The Centennial of Professor Boleslav V. Likhterman. This would seem to strongly bolster the case for notability. I'll see if I can accentuate his importance in the rewrite. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a Google search for "B.V. Likhterman" this morning and it does indeed seem that there is enough material in the ether to constitute notability. GOOGLE QUERY. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough material about him on the Net, in spite of him dying a long time ago. He made some important contributions. --Dyuku (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article certainly needs some clean-up but the subject does appear notable. There was a detailed biographical article about him[14] (in Russian) in 2003 in a webmagazine 'Notes on Jewish History'. I have added it to the list of refs. That article also mentions that in 2002 a book of memoirs (recollections by various other medical researchers about his life and work) about him was published in Russia, dedicated to his 100th anniversary. The book was already listed in the References section (A Man of Light: For the Centennial of Professor Boleslav V. Likhterman). Ordinarily, a book like that would certainly justify a solid keep, but it was edited by his son, Leonid Likhterman (apparently also a notable medical researcher), which somewhat depreciates its value as an independent source. Still, according to this library catalog[15], the book is 495 pages long, so I assume it includes chapters by quite a few people who are independent of the subject. Also, I added a ref[16] to a 1967 obituary about him in a Russian medical journal (of which, however, he was an editor, which again somewhat deprecates the value of this ref). Still, all in all, I think there is enough here to pass WP:BIO, even if the case is not strong. Nsk92 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 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) 01:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McDonald (fighter)

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

Not to be confused with Michael McDonald (kickboxer), this McDonald is not notable, IMO: fails WP:MMANOT, very little coverage on Google (most is about the kickboxer), only a handful of fights in non-notable local/regional promotions against non-notable opponents. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no independent sources and subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. The article describes him as fighting in local promotions. Non-notable at this time. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted I got a little lazy creating the article, only because I started not feeling well. The article will be improved in a matter of a week. Now reasons to keep: McDonald is a huge named prospect and will likely sign with the WEC in a matter of months. He has defeated two very notable fighters, has a great grappling pedigree, a brown belt in BJJ, a ton of MMA and kickboxing experience, and currently holds a title in a mid sized organization. You can delete it, but it's gonna get brought back within a few months when a huge promotions scoops him up. RapidSpin33 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I said "at this time". You may well be right, but WP:CRYSTAL says we can't assume that. His title is from a non-notable local promotion. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree there's a good chance he may be notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Once he's had some fights with a top-tier MMA org, the article can be recreated. Astudent0 (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and GNG -Drdisque (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with comments above on speculation. Janggeom (talk) 15:43, 14 July 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 Creme Puff (cat). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creme Puff

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

Biography of dead cat which was, at one time, the oldest cat in the world. Half the article is currently about a different cat. This will likely never be more than a stub, unless Creme Puff is re-animated and does something notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but move to Creme Puff (cat)). Anyone who has ever owned a cat or known someone who did would consider it remarkable that a cat lived 38 years, and the fact that it was written about by Guinness and profiled on CNN essentially meets the requirement for significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. It appears that the reason for deletion isn't that the cat is non-notable, but rather that "this will likely never be more than a stub". Sorry, that's not a reason to delete. Mandsford 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - Information about "oldest cat ever recorded" to cat. It is asinine having a biography of a cat written under the cat's name. Wikipedia is not a memorial, etc. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Mandsford suggests. It's the oldest cat ever, after all - notable by anyone's standard - and if someone (probably not me) had the inclination, this article could be fleshed out with a little research. As for Carrite's assertion that it is "asinine" to have a biography of a cat under a cat's name, well, I think Hodge, Scarlett, and Saliega, among dozens of others, would surely disagree. --Seduisant (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short articles are quite acceptable in any encyclopedia and are preferable to the wall-of-text style. The topic is notable and no policy-based reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the good deletionist clan will get their axes sharpened... Carrite (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I agree, move to Creme Puff (cat). Searching for Creme Puffs should bring you automatically to a cat. Loiathal (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move Notability is established by reliable sources, not by the fact it maybe has a Guiness book of records mention. That aside, moving it to cat seems more appropriate. Bossanueva (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as reliable sources have established notability, there is no policy on not having articles listed by an animal's name (see e.g. Seabiscuit). Move to Creme Puff (cat) and redirect "Creme puff" to "Cream puff" or directly to "Profiterole". Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (disclaimer) After writing the preceding, I added a couple refs. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt oldest cat should have article, verifiable reliable sources exist^walk victor falk^talk 10:52, 17 July 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 01:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Loser

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

Article does not state what 'the greatest loser' is. There is no lead, categories, reference, or anything that would tell the reader what on earth it's talking about. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this is about some ghastly TV show where contestants have to see who can lose the most weight. I think I have seen some (derisive) coverage of this somewhere. I don't know if it is notable, but I guess it might be, so I have taken the speedy deletion tag off. I will see what I can find out. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems that there are multiple weight loss competitions which use this name although shows called "The Biggest Loser" are a much more notable TV franchise (which is probably what I was thinking of when I mentioned remembering it getting coverage). I am not sure which competition this article refers to, it might not even be a televised one. The currency of the prize is listed as B$, which would suggest either Bahamian dollars or Brunei dollars. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no reliable references or context are apparent by the close. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm gathering that The Greatest Loser may be the British version of The Biggest Loser (A weight of 140 is great if you're talking about lbs. and not go great if you're talking kg). Still, this is apparently someone's scorecard for this season's contestants, and few reality shows merit that type of coverage. Mandsford 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British version of The Biggest Loser is The Biggest Loser (UK TV series) so it must be somewhere else where both metric measurements and bad TV are prevalent. That could be most of the rest of the world. The currency on the prize being B$ is the closest thing we have to a clue. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability given. couldnt this be a speedy delete? absolutely no context. i think weve figured out its about a ripoff of biggest loser, but it may not even be real.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was my fault. I took speedy deletion off it because I confused it with the more notable franchise. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. we are all human.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not only is this page completely unsourced, it also lacks a lot of important details that are needed to establish sufficient context for readers. Furthermore, I ran several Google queries and was unable to find sufficient reliable coverage of this subject. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't even an article; all it is is a chart. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete I assume this refers to some version of the "Biggest Loser" television series, but a Google search using "loser" and some of the names did not succeed in finding out which one. As it stands, both unverified and incomprehensible. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 17 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighborhoods in Harlem

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

Consists, at present, only redlinks, and the scope may be too narrow. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although we have some articles about subneighborhoods (such as Astor Row) in Harlem (which is, in itself, a neighborhood in Manhattan, one of the boroughs of New York City), I don't see any reason why a list of subneighborhoods couldn't be in the article about Harlem itself. Mandsford 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harlem, until the sub neighborhoods start to have subsections about most of them, then we break them out into articles, then create a list.Keep i just did some research, we have some articles on other neighborhoods, i added them. if someone can provide references showing the redlinked neighborhoods are notable, then i have no problem with this list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, even if the redlinked neighborhoods never have references, and get deleted, the remaining ones are still notable, so i think this should stand even if the content of the original article is removed. and thanks for acknowledging what i did (not too hard of course).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the editing done by mercurywoodrose, this article is fine^walk victor falk^talk 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the good research by Mercurywoodrose. There are enough notable neighborhoods to warrant a list, and if the other neighborhoods lack articles, maybe somebody could suggest them under "articles requested". --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 17 July 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 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Group

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

Contested prod. Textile and jewelry company in India. Slightly promotional, all references are primary except for one in Malayalam which looks like a press release. Delete unless someone can come up with adequate sources, even if they are not in English. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala dailies have less news on business. So even yoy exclude banks, so have less news articles publised in Malyalam dailes. Textile and jewelry companies are same like Tata and Ambani. Only change is that these people sell oil, polyster, car etc. It may have less prominence beacuse Kerala is not a business society but a remitance society. So you can't find less news in newspapers and websites.

14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I think the article should be kept. It is a notable corporate group in South India just like Nalli Chinnasamy Chetti. --JovianEye (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definately notable. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the bigger Textile companies in South India. Added references from The Hindu and Business Line.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 12 July 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 00:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture

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

The references supplied do not add significant coverage of the individual books. The series is notable but not the individual instalments. I am nominating the remaining individual articles as per WP:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 2: The Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 3: The Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 4: The Siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 5: The Shattering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 6: The Burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 7: The Hatchling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 8: The Outcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 9: The First Collier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 10: The Coming of Hoole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole: A Guide Book to the Great Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles consist of a short plot summary with little else. All of this could be succinctly summarized in the article on the series. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - despite my dislike of mass-nominations, I can't see any of them meeting WP:NB or WP:GNG - there's a specific lack of coverage independent of coverage of the series. Claritas § 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - i am the one who contested prod on all of these. Since then i have failed to find more sources to expand these book articles beyond plot summary. One of them was on the NY Times book seller list. Besides that there is no other significant information. IMO, the article on the series is enough to cover all the books together.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the deletion, provided that the content is adequately covered in the series' article. If we need to merge content to assure good coverage, then we'll have to keep these as redirects, per the GFDL, although I agree they're improbable search terms. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 11 July 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. A lot of WP:ATA on the keep side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Libraries Wiki of Canada - HLWiki Canada

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

Non-notable website, no reliable sources cited. A little bit spammy. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spamcruftdvertisement. Delete. —I-20 the highway 19:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is the most comprehensive wiki focusing on evidence based medicine and social media. It is managed and written by Dean Giustini who was the first one to publish about the topic in a peer reviewed journal. 84.2.132.123 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 84.2.132.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is a specialized wiki which deserves to be included in wikipedia given its importance in the canadian health libraries system. (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — ciscogiii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't actually focus on "importance" so much as notability, verifiability and neutral point of view. Orderinchaos 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful article on seemingly important (albeit specialized) non-commercial wiki site. Worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, article needs to be retitled to one name or the other, with the second name being established as a redirect page to the first. This is, of course, a very easy and quick fix. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what are you basing your assertion that this is important? I'm not seeing any decent sourced cited. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is basically a corporate statement of purpose mixed with a press release (it's not strictly speaking advertising, but falls within the same ambit for our purposes) - fails WP:ORG and therefore WP:N, and is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. Orderinchaos 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Sure the site may be comprehensive and academic and many other sites link to it, but where's the sources that are about the site itself? where's the reviews from popular magazines and newspapers? where's all the awards it's won? -- œ ^™ 19:27, 17 July 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 00:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Romanovsky

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reads like self-promotion. Sole Soul (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find secondary sources; can't establish notability. Piano tech 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From the lead: "here are expected from this young guy the most biggest successes in the future yet." Yeeeesh! Self-promotion, anyone? Carrite (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find two of the charities he donates to. Seems almost like he wrote it himself. Loiathal (talk) 20:05, 12 July 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 00:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Wells

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

Unable to find any sources establishing notability Hallucegenia (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I nom'd this one two years ago, no better since.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here to suggest notability. Except perhaps founding a fraternity, but it turns out it was founded twenty years before he was born. Just an ordinary teacher and writer, really. St Anselm (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability; unreferenced BLP. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What few references I can find don't rise to the GNG. Unsourced for 2+ years. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I made a real effort to find sourcing and notability, but could not.--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 16 July 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. The article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Offshore-wind and Tidal Turbine Generation System

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

This appears to be an abstract for an paper which is not on Wikipedia. Bringing it here for discussion. (The author has also made several near-identical articles about similar topics. I'll list them all here after I've found them all and tagged them with Afds.) elektrik SHOOS 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation and tagged as such. See [17]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 12 July 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. The article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid offshore wind energy

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

This appears to be an abstract for an paper which is not on Wikipedia. Bringing it here for discussion. (The author is also creating several near-identical articles about similar topics. I will list them all here once I've rounded them all up and tagged them all with Afd.) elektrik SHOOS 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation and tagged as such. See [18]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 12 July 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. The article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid tidal energy

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

This appears to be an abstract for an paper which is not on Wikipedia. Bringing it here for discussion. elektrik SHOOS 09:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation and tagged as such. See [19]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 12 July 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. The article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid tidal

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

This appears to be an abstract for an paper which is not on Wikipedia. Bringing it here for discussion. (This also appears to be a near-exact duplicate of several other similar articles which I will list here and on the other Afds after I've rounded them all up.) elektrik SHOOS 09:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation and tagged as such. See this abstract. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 12 July 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. The article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid offshore wind

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

This appears to be an abstract for an paper which is not on Wikipedia. Bringing it here for discussion. elektrik SHOOS 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include in this discussion clone articles

Hybrid tidal

Hybrid tidal energy --mboverload @ 09:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation. See [20]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 12 July 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 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabia (Ugly Betty)

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

No reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this minor fictional character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Character is already covered in appropriate detail in the character list article, there is no sourced information and the article's name is a highly implausible search term, so no redirect or merge is needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I really can't add anything to that. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the text is taken from Ugly Betty Wikia, and is properly licensed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character who appears in only a few episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appeared in 3 episodes in season one...this isn't a major character. She has no significant coverage. The name is not a searchable term, so I say delete. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete could not find verifiable evidence of notability. see WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 16 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana Amorosa

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

Non-notable, nearly contextless, few reliable source avalible that give any more information, contested PROD Ronk01 talk, 03:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article "nearly contextless" when it says precisely what and where the subject is? In fact it's nothing but context. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there is little or no opportunity for expansion, the geographical feature is non-notable and the creator has a history of creating these ultra stubs (take a look at his talkpage) There is no Featured Article potential, or even article potential here. Ronk01 talk, 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does appear to be a geographical bay - [21] - and it has received significant coverage from secondary sources that spans at least 2 centuries. [22][23][24] There's even some ancient archeological history here. [25][26] A perfectly valid stub. That the nom considers it "nearly contextless" is a reason to expand it, not delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Phil Bridger. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per my comments above. Ronk01 talk, 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Duplicate !vote (!voter is the nominator) --Cyclopia ^talk 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oakshade has established notability, so I'm rather surprised that the nominator persists in denying it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established through the sources provided by Oakshade. Geographic locations with some outside coverage (which there is plenty of in this case) can generally be kept as part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:57, 11 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremony (punk band)

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

Fails WP:BAND as no significant reliable sources can be found for this band. Notability is not established as only unsourced trivial claims are made in the article. And while an eventual editor may try to claim it meets one of the criteria for WP:BAND, the first criteria ([the article has been ] "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") is not met and should be used to judge this debate. --moreno oso (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has received sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources: [27], [28], [29], [30], and plenty more in less-convincing/familiar sources: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. And we'll use all the criteria of WP:BAND, thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Billboard - #18 in 'Top Internet' albums chart, #49 in 'Top Heatseekers', Sputnik Music staff review, Allmusic review, Exclaim! article.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Michig on this one. The sources aren't too hard to find with some targeted searching. The only problem with this article is that its creators used cheesy sources when much better sources are easily available. That's a reason for article improvement, not deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:05, 12 July 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 MINUS the nom JForget 00:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (comics)

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

Fictional characters who fail WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Google finds nothing adequate for either of them - [39], [40]. Furthermore per WP:MOSFICTION and WP:PLOT, this sort of excessive in-universe description is inappropriate. Claritas § 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a short article about the character in The Encyclopedia of Super Villains (New York, Facts On File Publications, pp 6-7).SPNic (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. Claritas § 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SPNic, although it would help if you would directly add such sources to the article. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to sources from SPNic. Not sure if it's enough to WP:verifynotability but the article deserves some time before we figure out if it has the potential to meet baseline standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A character from the Marvel Comics universe, all of which are notable by having Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four for cousins. Answer has even appeared in Spider-Man's books. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Neutral - if there are sources, great, if not, delete, but the notion that every single character in the Marvel Universe is automatically notable because Spider-Man and the FF are notable is patently wrong and not a valid justification for keeping. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:38, 11 July 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 merge to Clans (BattleTech). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Jade Falcon

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

Disputed prod. Prod was "No independent sources indicating notability", removed because "external links prove notability." Only source is the company's website, for what I can tell. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is a fictional property that originated in RPG game books, there would be books with this in it, because that's where it started. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clans (BattleTech) 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per 76.66.195.196. No independent sources to WP:verify notability. Would also support delete but trying to build a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferred, but would not object to a merge. Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 17 July 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 merge to Clans (BattleTech). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Wolf

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

Disputed prod. Prod was "No independent sources indicating notability", removed because "external links prove notability." I still don't see any independent reliable sources but reviewing the links,

1 cannot load but because Tierranet looks like a typical domain provider, I'm not sure that's going to be a WP:RS.
2 is a just a personal website, not a RS.
3 seems to be a sort of unauthorized fan page about designing the figures.
4 is a dead link now~~, so ignored~~.

The wayback machine shows this earlier version but that's still not a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 describes itself as the ""ComStar Historical Archives" which I thought could be notable until I realized that ComStar is just a part of the fictional universe and thus another anonymous fansite. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BKD - articles concerning fictional entities must demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and there's very little evidence for any out-of-universe coverage here. Claritas § 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books search for "Clan Wolf" indicates there are a few mentions in printed sources (for some reason Wikipedia no longer renders GBooks search results properly :( ). Google search for "Clan Wolf" battletech -wikipedia yields ~50k results. Overall, I think the notability is given as it is a major fictional entity in a notable fictional universe (it is, most crucially, mentioned in several dozens of novels, not to mention several dozens of gaming books and games). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BattleTech is a paper and dice RPG, and has a spin-off novel series, so there would be mentions in books, since it is in essence an entity created on paper (such as the DM guides for gamemasters). 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clans (BattleTech), and dabify, since "Wolf Clan" and "Clan Wolf" is a very common construct in fiction. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the leading choice but would also support delete. Can't WP:verifynotability so a stand-alone article is inappropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:11, 11 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. B The Gentleman Rhymer

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I speedied this and then restored it in response to doubts raised on my talk page. It's unclear to me whether this meets our notability guideline for musicians, as I can't find more than passing mentions in reliable sources. Without that, ~~weak delete~~. With evidence of significant coverage, I'll reverse my position.--Chaser (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although the BBC article is just a passing mention, he is discussed in detail at The Argus. Nevertheless, an artist with a debut album without much discussion generally isn't enough in my view to pass WP:MUSIC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this interview in Music Magazine. Switching to neutral.--Chaser (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Thanks Chaser for giving this one a chance! There's mentions here in the Sunday Times and also the Telegraph. Also an interview from a festival he played. I still think he could possibly come under section 7 of WP:MUSIC, or being a musical comic, section 2 and/or 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER, but this is my first experiance interacting with wikipedia so I'm not 100% on all the rules here. All the best. -- Piperazine (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as it stands~~ "Also playing was Mr B the self-styled gentleman rhymer who combines "beats, rhymes and manners" into a charming whole he has dubbed "chap hop" rather than hip hop." That is the 'featuring' in the BBC article. I feel that he might be trying to introduce the Queen's English to hip-hop, not the way stated. Good luck to him - I hop he succeeds. (yes, that was deliberate) Given better referencing, I would be prepared to change my mind - as always. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to ~~Neutral~~ till I feel up to investigating new refs. It is nice to find someone who will listen when referencing is in question. So many just repeat guff... (Probably means they can't find any. Coverage is appearing here.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching again to Keep. Looks OK now. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken Peridon, that BBC article is a little lame to say the least. I will be trying to improve the article over the next week or so, but this is my first ever go at editing a wiki page, and I'm struggling with the wiki markup language a little (especially referencing), so I hope you can all bear with me. -- Piperazine (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to make a few edits after I figured out how to reference (many thanks Peridon). I've got to read up on adding photo's now.. eek, but as it stands I would like to switch to Keep -- Piperazine (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your weak keep above to keep things straight. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another news article has popped up this morning at This is Local London. -- Piperazine (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has absolutely no standing in terms of the rules, but I'm really glad I found this wikipedia article to explain about one of the acts who played at the Frank Sidebottom commemoration event in Manchester. So I was really glad it was here.

14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmaytum (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sufficient references. Artw (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecchi anime

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

The list fails WP:SALT as it contains an overly vague inclusion criteria with little not no bases on reliable sources. Ecchi is a Japanese term derived from the letter "H" in the word hentai and can mean anything from "sexy", "lewd", to near pornographic; but it is generally used as a synonymy for "perverted". Because of this broadness, very few reliable sources actually uses the term, and will almost ever use the term to describe a particular anime. Thus every series listed is based on the personal view point and interpretations of the term by editors who added the series to the list and are therefore unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the creator of this list, the nominator was kind enough to notify me of this AFD. I encountered this list as a list-style article in the category namespace: the now-deleted Category:Ecchi anime. I created this article merely to move the list into the correct namespace, and since I know nothing about the topic I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I do see the term used in reliable-source reviews, though admittedly more often in reviews of manga than anime, and its most common use is "this is more ecchi than hentai." Reliable sources also do try to pick out the distinguishing features of the two terms, making the subject of notable interest. It is certainly not over-broad in itself, given the term's use -- the main issue is sourcing and original research, which it seems to me can be solved by insisting that nothing be on the list without a source calling the anime that. Also, I note that we have the long-standing category Category:Ecchi anime and manga. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category has the exact same problems as the list. I'm about to go through the cat and remove any articles that are not supported by reliable sources. I expect the category to be nearly empty after the sweep. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Category:Ecchi anime and manga has the same problem as this list and the previous cat. Unless "ecchi" is used by japanese anime/manga producers in a precise fashion, like part of a rating system, or is used by reviewers to describe it accurately, its like having a "list of kinky movies", which wouldnt stand. I can see the value of such a list for people searching for anime with sexual content, but thats not what WP is for. If the list can be cleaned of subjects without sources indicating "ecchi" content, and if there are any left, then i guess it can stay, but i dont like it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what seems to be used on the net... "hentai" would be pornographic, while "ecchi" is erotic, which means use of both of these terms are jargon, and should be replaced by "pornographic" and "erotic" respectively. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not an expert on anime, but as I understand it, this term is too vague and contestable to serve as the inclusion criteria for a list or category. List of anime with sexual content would be acceptable, but I don't think there's a clear way of determining whether a given anime is 'ecchi' or not. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question with that is how much "sexual content" must an anime have before it can be added to the list. Pany shots? Nudity of any kind? Skimpy bathing suits? A bath scene? What about a long running anime series with only one sex seen but no other sexual content. What about a series like The Slayers which makes frequent jokes about the lead character's breast size and another character with an outfit so revealing, she would get arrested for indecent exposure. —Farix (t | c) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about official sites like tokyopop and funimation that label the anime ecchi as a genre? Can they be used as sources to label something ecchi? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show examples of either of them using such a label? —Farix (t | c) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the product is advertised with that term, or those that review it put it in that category, then stick it on the list. We already have a Wikipedia category for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ecchi_anime_and_manga And the article ecchi gives a clear definition of the defining characteristics. Going to nominate those too? Does anyone doubt this is a real genre? Dream Focus 04:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the product is advertised with that term" But so far, no one has been able to back up that claim with reliable sources. And going through Category:Ecchi anime and manga, it's clear that most reviewers generally avoid the term altogether. In fact, going through A-I, I've only found four series were a single reviewer did use the term to describe the series. Also, the existence of a category doesn't justify the existence of a list, especially when both suffer the same issues of verifiability and original research. —Farix (t | c) 15:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anime News Network uses that genre to define things. [41] Its a very common theme. Dream Focus 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ANN's encyclopedia's genres are user submitted and are notorious for being wrong. —Farix (t | c) 01:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while Ecchi is likely a notable topic (if its article can ever be expanded beyond its current WP:DICDEF state), trying to maintain a list of series that fit the label would be overly broad and beyond the scope of a list. There isn't a finite number of ecchi series, nor is the current number of known ecchi series what I would consider small. As with any genre topic, the main article should highlight well-sourced examples to draw on, rather than creating an overly broad list of all "possible" examples that tend to be rife more with WP:OR and personal opinions than actual facts. Such a list is in the end difficult to maintain. It is for the very broad topics such as these that categories are the more ideal solution. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, AnmaFinotera convinces me -- coupled with the fact that reliable sources often can be found disagreeing over whether a given work is ecchi, both on the tamer and more hentai edges of this hard-to-define concept. Better would be putting effort into beefing up Ecchi, and in the meantime delete this. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is an example of how much original research is going on with the entries on this list. There has been several attempts by IPs to add Highschool of the Dead. However, none of the reviews from reliable sources have labeled the series "ecchi" or even mention the term in relations to the series. —Farix (t | c) 20:16, 14 July 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.

nevertheless this discussion is just plain shit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Forum on Urbanism

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

Contested PROD, WP:NOTDIR, cannot find references to show notability per WP:GNG. Chzz ► 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable initiative with little coverage in reliable sources. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is short, choppy and in the end, you still wonder exactly what this group actually does aside from "studying urban design." What does that mean, anyway? Are they studying buildings, housing, streets, everything on the earth made my man, what? Very little information aside from participating institutions and a basic opening sentence. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karma: A Very Twisted Love Story

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

Contested PROD. Yes, it was shortlisted for an award; however, apart from that single reference, I can find nothing in Google News. Thus, I do not see how it is possible to present encyclopaedic information on this topic; it does not have the requisite significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG) - at least, I cannot find any. Chzz ► 13:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs = no notability, at least at Wiki. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete per nom. --khfan93 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually no information. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:45, 11 July 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. The "keep" votes do not specifically address the issue of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Pourmohsen

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

Fails WP:BIO. Page created by single page editor, possibly the subject himself.Farhikht (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Persian: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Rather difficult to sort through the hits as he's a journalist, so many of those are articles he wrote rather than sources about him. So far all I'm seeing are brief mentions in articles on other topics, similar to those in English (like [42]), and rather borderline sources like Iranian Students News Agency [43]. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the page has a good quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources give tangential coverage. Also not all the sources match the article text which doesn't fill me with confidence. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability questionable, but difficult to verify. Many claims, few references to prove them. Article is in serious need of cleanup for format, grammar, you name it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Keep - Significant information of a de facto political figure. Expand don't delete. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 11 July 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 Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Fletcher

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

Contested proposed deletion; resume-like, and has only a single reference, which is a passing mention. I cannot see any particular aspect of the career history that will definitively establish notability, per WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Chzz ► 13:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom., the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Claritas § 13:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, private individual. Does not meet requirement for WP:BLP. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete per nom. --khfan93 03:32, 11 July 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 merge to Nobuyuki Anzai. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixim 11

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

Contested prod. Does not demonstrate notably by WP:N or WP:BK. A search for reliable sources has come up with illegal scanlation or retail websites. Article is mostly a plot summary with no real-world context. —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:N or WP:BK, purely in-universe content in violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nobuyuki Anzai. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nobuyuki Anzai A possible search to those who may read the manga. There is nothing really to merge into the author's article other than its dates run which is already there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nobuyuki Anzai. I don't read manga, but if they care enough to read the book, they just want info on the author. Old Al (Talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Given the author and current length of serialization, I find it quite unlikely that the series is indeed non-notable. However, I'm not opposed to redirecting it to Anzai's page in the interrim, since there's not much to say about it right now and can't find any good English sources off-hand. --erachima talk 22:58, 13 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Taylor

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

Non notable bio. No claim to notability. Can find little in terms of reliable publications to constitute having this article. Obviously a COI too. Worthless self-promotion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the director if his movies are on wikipedia? I noticed his name was in the movie articles and tagged but he did not have his own page. I am not Deon Taylor, I am not the photographer of Deon Tayler, etc. I am not a shameless self promoter, I am adding the director up of a small indie horror following. There are links to his name on the official list for NBAEL, his own personal interview in this own words for citation purposes, his bio at IMDB.com. Why is that not official enough? Does he need to have a book published on him first? His birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CenobiteCreepe (talk · contribs) is the original editor of the article; this is the editor's first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"small indie horror". My point exactly. Shitty low budget film directors with only a handful of credits should not have encyclopedia articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is Oren Peli, the director of the low budget Paranormal Activity. Still a good movie/director despite being low budget. Chain Letter is being released in theatres August.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find significant coverage for his work. And to answer your question, CenobiteCreepe, you should read WP:BIO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to contest the article in that I can find secondary sources. I will add them up Tuesday.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:CenobiteCreepe has obvious SPA and COI problems. I could not find independent sources. IMDB does not check facts, and "small indie horror' film does not equate to notability. Racepacket (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what SPA is. I know that COI means that people assume I know Deon Taylor because I uploaded the photo and clicked I had rights to it so it wouldn't be deleted in 7 days. I deleted it and re-uploaded hopefully under proper terms but it says it will still be deleted. I won't put a photo up anymore but I am not the photographer and am not affiliated with the director. I had no idea it would cause that much confusion. Sorry.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA refers to a single-purpose account. I've removed the note labeling your account as single purpose and instead noted that you're a new user and that this is your first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I don't think there's a COI between CenobiteCreep and the subject, if the photo of Taylor was just uploaded with the wrong license terms. The problem with the article is lack of sourcing: IMDB, another movie website, and one line in a NBAE roster are all this article is hinging on. Unless he's gotten significant coverage in an independent reliable source, then he doesn't deserve an article—at least, not until later in his career, when his films go on to get him that coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or worst case, incubate), due to the presentation of new sources. There is a Sac Bee story on the impending national release of Chain Letter. It's eight paragraphs about Taylor, his film, and his company, so I'd say that's significant coverage. The film is due for an August release, so I'd say to err on the side of caution now and keep the article; we can always revisit in November 2010 or February 2011 if we find we've mis-assessed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I'll work on getting more sources up. Thanks to those helping me with my first article.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is borderline, but refs are a mess. Hard to verify. It is also written like a 10-year-old was asked to write an autobiography disguised as a biography. Delete unless drastic improvements to refs and notability can be corrected. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

There are more atrociously written articles on Wikipedia you could focus on. Like ones with actual spelling errors by 10 year olds. On a lighter note, could you be more specific as to how the references constitute a mess? And are hard to verify? CenobiteCreepe (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. As the article creator says, several films by this guy are on the site, and link to this page. An article being poorly written is not a reason to delete. --khfan93 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline but there are enough sources, and AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Seems to be on the threshold of "significant coverage."--Pink Bull 23:29, 18 July 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosgeologiya

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

I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. Chzz ► 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. True crystal; as of June 16, 2010 there were vague plans to form it "within two years" (in Russian). Just another govt scam. East of Borschov 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 11 July 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) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessLab

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

A previous version of this was deleted via a proposed deletion (proposed by myself) with the reasoning " No reliable sources; all primary-sourced; no claim to notability". This replacement version may be re-creation; it might also be considered CSD as being overtly advert-like, and needing a 'fundamental rewrite' to become encyclopaedic, but as it has been recreated, I feel that AfD is necesary to document conclusions. I therefore suggest deletion because;

It depends entirely on the primary source
It is not neutral, and contains claims that cannot be referenced through reliable sources
It would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic

Chzz ► 09:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although there is an article in the German Wiki I could not find refs which invalidate the arguments given by nom. Dewritech (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam duffbeerforme (talk) 05:37, 11 July 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. Speedy deleted per G4 recreation of previously deleted article. Davewild (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logos used in Logorama

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

I don't think this list is necessary, per WP:IINFO. elektrik SHOOS 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information is too trivial. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article (or one very similar) was AfD'd and deleted less that 2 weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of logos used in Logorama. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well in that case, move to close as I'll be promptly tagging the article with db-g4. elektrik SHOOS 01:39, 13 July 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) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bettenhausen

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was nominated a year ago with the consensus of keeping the article as long as it gets fleshed out. A year has passed since then and the article is even more of a stub now than it was year ago. Right now it reads more like a résumé for the person than an actual biography and personally I've seen no convincing reason to keep this page since it fails to assert notability. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources found in 2008 (first nomination) would still not be enough to pass WP:BIO, and any other sources I've found tend to simply mention him, rather than talk about him, which is what the original sources found did. --Teancum (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvements to article after a year. Still not up to Wiki standards and unlikely to be as no one is taking the time to improve the page. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable person. Cannot find non-trivial sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is of no notability. Doesn't seem to be in any way a person in the Gaming industry who is considered to be notable. Yousou (talk) 19:11, 12 July 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. per nomination withdrawl JForget 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol survivor

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

Article about an unremarkable game that may not meet WP:Notability. elektrik SHOOS 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reviews at Eurogamer, Avault.com and PC Format magazine (June 2010). Also some other websites that I've not heard of so may or may not be reliable sources. Dont forget to check the custom search at WP:VG/RS before bringing things to AfD! Marasmusine (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Marasmusine's findings plus all these reviews of the game listed at Metacritic here. –MuZemike 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per the above two comments. Though the article definitely needs cleanup. elektrik SHOOS 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article tagged for clean up. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:54, 16 July 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 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Uniform Errors

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

I'm not sure a list like this is really needed, per WP:IINFO, but I figured I'd list it here for discussion. (It also doesn't help at all that nearly all of the 'references' are links to a Flickr album.) elektrik SHOOS 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This page should be merged with Major League Baseball All-Star Game since it obviously relates to the MLB, and I don't believe this page should get it's own page, as it basically it just trivial information. Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just un-merged it from that article, and for good reason. It's a huge table of trivia (extreme) in an already huge, monstrous article. Carry on, that's all I have to add. And although I split out the article, I certainly didn't write its contents. Cookiehead (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:V and WP:RS (most references are from flickr, which isn't a reliable source). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like this article could be of encyclopedic benefit to someone, as (possibly intentional) wardrobe goofs at a major sporting event might be a notable thing to include, but it's the list of references (all from Flickr) that bothers me (per the above comment). If this article is deleted as a result of this discussion it should be with a note to the creator (or other interested parties) that the article may be eligible for reinclusion if reliable sources can be found to support the information. elektrik SHOOS 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All this information seems trivial to me. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, however, it seems to be trivial and lacks reliable sources. The problem with a page like this is that there are probably numerous errors on uniforms that aren't documented, like a missing patch or a misprint in name. Maybe the editor who created it could take it over to UniWatch since it is an interesting list despite its lack of encyclopedic value. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly trivial in the whole scheme of things, and not well-sourced. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: question of reliability of flickr as a sources, photographic evidence is all that's needed to prove the assertions correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.130.71 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because something is photographic it doesn't mean it's reliable. Have seen some of the photos and there's no information on the photos where they was made, thus they are unreliable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:44, 14 July 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 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FireScope, Inc.

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

Although I was able to find FireScope mentioned on many pages in Google, this page reads like an ad. Additionally, the references link to the company website, a reader poll on informationweek, and a blog. Without third party reliable sources establishing notability, I think this is a easy delete. --Gnowor^T_C 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated, lots of GHits but I can find nothing that is significant or in a reliable source. Fails WP:ORG. Nuttah (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another company looking at Wiki for free advertising. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Speedy Keep - For no reason at all!!!! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman19 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:00, 17 July 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 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School, Launceston

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

A Primary school, so without inherent notability; meets no other notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Tasmania#Catholic schools where it is mentioned. The article is confused, but this confirms it is a primary school and Launceston is too big for a geographic merge. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that this is also a "high school". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently a primary school, but previously was a secondary school, on the same campus but under different names. A quandary: keep as a former secondary school? redirect to the school that - through a somewhat convoluted path - has inherited its secondary school functions? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep the article, because of the historical interest. (See this ref: [44]. It is one of only two dozen or so educational establishments to make it into this database compiled by Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, and with an apparently rigourous inclusion process. See [45]). Hallucegenia (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference and external link to the article. Hallucegenia (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical interest and locally important.AWHS (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as nominator, I could withdraw the nomination, but I am sure that the preferable outcome is an outcome decided by consensus. To that end I would ask that !voters continue building the case for a keep in the article itself as well as in this AfD. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primary school but changed to keep because of the history found, above. TerriersFan (talk) 00:15, 16 July 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 00:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanvieh

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

Was tagged {{db-band}}, as a non-notable music group. I could find less than 100 hits on Google and none of them looked substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says it's a persian band. Maybe you could find more sources with persian script?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, it seems to be the persian word for January, so amount of hits is not useful. We need someone who speaks persian.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Persian, and I believe SPADA 2 (who expressed an opinion below) does as well. Neither of us could find anything. cab (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right I speak Persian. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I think that band is quite good, and so they deserve in every way of the article. Besides, there is more than 100 hits on google, there's just over 3,000. Know your facts! Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I found out there was 100 hits, must have misread it. Oh well. Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in America, where we do not as a general rule, converse in Persian written about in English. Perhaps it could be added to the Persian Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- This is not a valid deletion rationale. Wikipedia is not limited to American subjects. Attempts to modify the notability policy to require English sources have repeatedly failed. cab (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:Music, no records at Allmusic, the label is unkonwn, if you check them at Cdbaby it seems self published, the article is written like an advertisment in some parts, no reliable sources for some important facts that the article claims. --SPADA 2 ♪♫ (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're based in Southern California, so I'd expect that if they had any coverage, it would be in English, not Persian. Nevertheless I tried searching in Persian as well and found nothing. As mentioned above it's impossible to directly search for their band name, and I can't find the full names of the members anywhere, but for example, querying on all the names of the songs on their first album plus their own band name gives nothing reliable (and nothing even relevant) [46]. cab (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CAB.Farhikht (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Delete.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 18:35, 17 July 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 00:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's Witnesses

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

No third-party sources; no indication of notability, no indication of 'international' status. Suspect that article creator User:Rchristian may be the religion's 'founder' 'Gordon Ritchie'. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:LWadmin also appears to be a single-purpose user account associated with this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to cite independant, reliable, third party sources about the church. Citations are either to church own websites or to independant websites dealing with the Bible code in general. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prsaucer1958. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small, minor sect lacking any real sources. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 12 July 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) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Peters (blogger)

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

This page needs to be revamped from scratch, beginning with its name, if it should exist at all. As several users have expressed, Thomas Peters does not meet the notability criteria for a living person. One of the sources ("The Catholic Club) only mention Peters and his blog in order to discredit Peters for having petty debates on his blog. This is a strike against his notability, not a credit towards it. Other sources are lesser known blogs with one comment or less on average (such as St. Michael Society), not showing significant coverage. Still others are not independent but are affiliates promoting Peters' blog (such as the Catholic Vote Action link, St. Michael Society link, etc.). This issue leads to a greater problem. If the page is to be rewritten -- and I'm not sure it should -- the page should be about Peters' blog itself (American Papist) with Peters maybe meriting a subsection and his name redirecting to the blog Wikipedia entry. Alternatively, the page could be deleted outright and recreated on a sister Wiki rather than Wikipedia. Darthoutis (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 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) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The persons notability is doubtful, and in any case the article name is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, Rewrite A significant topic, but an article that should be about the blog, not the blogger. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . the references are enough to support the importance of the blog, but as he has done a few more things than the blog, the article should be on him. This is always a dilemma, and I think we should always incline to the person, about whom there is more likely to be additional importance in the future & so the opportunity to develop the article. 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion would benefit from an evaluation of specific sources. I've already identified examples of the problematic sources, which either don't show significant coverage or are not independent sources but affiliates promoting Peters and his blog.Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Peters' isolated appearances on a couple of cable news interviews are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's allowance for people likely to remain high profile. Although Wikipedia does grant notability to people with a short history of coverage, that liberty only applies under condition that the subject already has a high profile. Peters himself, nor his blog, has ever been the subject of any major news stories, and I'm not sure Peters' appearances as a consultant for a couple of cable TV interviews count as high profile. The more I think about this, the more I believe this page (whether about Peters or his blog) better belongs on a sister Wiki, which is more conducive to specialized subjects. If Peters or his blog ever does become notable for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, we can always recreate his page. That is what deletion review is for when "new significant information comes to light and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." (see criterion #3 under "Principal purpose").Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not condone articles on bloggers. Not notable. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I'm not sure if this guy is notable, but some bloggers certainly are: see Category:Bloggers. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, a few TV appearances as a minor pundit do not constitute coverage of Peters, and therefore are not evidence of notability. I doubt the blog is notable either. -- Chonak (talk) 03:46, 12 July 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 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Mick White

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's published two critically well-received books by reputable publishers, has won an important fellowship, has strong history of performance and teaching.He canine (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see nothing in the article that points to the notability of the books. Even if that were the case, the books might be notable, but I see nothing that supports the writer's notability per Wikipedia guidelines. There is nothing in the article supports the assertion that he won a significant award. ttonyb (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's published fiction in several leading journals (Callaloo, Concho River, Antietam); some of the other publications are puff, but that shouldn't take away from the significance of the more notable work. Gival is also a well-respected independent publisher, not some second-rate pamphleteer or self-pub mill, which also strongly suggests notability in the field. Vartanza (talk) 14:16, 3 July 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, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as required by the GNG guideline--there are 2 acceptable 3rd party articles at least about him and his work. The keep is only a weak one because I think he is not yet notable. One of the two books is just a collection of previously published stories, and he has not actually won any awards. I think we should stop using the GNG and insist on actual notability in some objective fashion according to the field. Neither of his two books are in any way notable, being held by only a few libraries (<10).The author of a notable book is notable, though,because what fundamentally makes an author notable is having published notable works--what else could he be notable for as an author? The references used to support the notability of the books will always support the author also. Even authors who have not written a notable book can be notable as an author on other bases, as he would be if his work were included in major anthologies. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 7 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Subject is a published, known author. Notability is established, though the article needs a good reworking for form and Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Greer

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

Contested PROD - the prod reasoning was, " I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable source to show notability for this unreferenced biography of a living person". Some sources have indeed been added, but I see nothing to show significant coverage; only one looks to be a true independent reliable source (a passing mention in a newspaper), so the same rationale still applies here. Chzz ► 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The University of Florida maintains an archive about her in its library; that sounds pretty notable. Her works were published by major publishers and went into "mass paperback" distribution so must have been good sellers. They were not the type of book that attracts serious reviews, and most were published in the pre-internet era, so I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 8 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed per above that maintenance of an archive of manuscripts in Special Collections of a major university implies notability. The article is a stub which needs expansion, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 11 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan C. Jones

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

Unreferenced BLP, lacks evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And an easy one. No references. Article also appears as a single run-on sentence. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable person. No sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. ^walk victor falk^talk 11:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maartje Nevejan

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

~~Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Can only find facebook, wiki mirrors and personal home page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw: Thanks to excellent work by User:MichaelQSchmidt, sources have now been provided to demonstrate the subject's notability. Please can a non-involved editor close this as keep. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nothing solid that i can find to indicate notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking "What links here" takes you to the Golden Calf for Best Actress page, itself indication of notability (and verifiable at Nederlands Film Festival Winnaars page). Then a Google Search for "Zilveren Zebra" leads to the page on her "Couscous&Cola" winning the ASN Bank Mediaprijs (Zilveren Zebra), as stated in the Awards section in the article. So while the article itself is woeful in formatting, notability is verifiable. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Find sources above return some Dutch language sources[47] which will require translation, and the awards seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. The article will require cleanup and better sourcing. Is it do-able?Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 6 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability asserted. Sources available. Article now being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 12 July 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 00:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Irving

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

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that I can find is wiki mirrors. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References now added to article. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The trouble is that the references for the Half Moon mention Irving only in passing and the film roles are not very significant. WP:ENTERTAINER requires a little more. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think his credits including the Bill and How to Be as well as his theatre contribution makes him just about worthy of inclusion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where Jezhotwells is coming from in the comment above. One could argue that the two refs regarding Half Moon are more about the institution than the man. And although he has a wide range of acting credits, they don't seem to be lead roles (at least those found online, which obviously tend to "recentism" and fail to take account of a long career). That's why I just noted the refs rather than expressing an opinion one way or the other. However, I too am tending to Weak keep as the article adds a bit of depth and cross-linking. AllyD (talk) 21:25, 6 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject demonstrates notability. He has a bio on IMDB as well as having been at least a small part player in several movies as well as establishing the "Half Moon Playhouse." Article is in need of some cleanup, better referencing, etc., but should not be deleted. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Keep Added source: [48]^walk victor falk^talk 12:07, 17 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Storm ARLFC

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

Amateur rugby league that doesn't meet the basic team criteria as a professional club, and I don't see anything other than primary sources that would indicate GNG status. Shadowjams (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - You have a point of this being an amateur club. It also doesn't have much information. Not related to the article, but the logo actually creeps me out a little. Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of american animated feature films

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

Delete - redundant to several existing lists and categories. PROD removed without comment by article's creator. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This list have never been created before is list is meant to document only American Animated feature films and be free of thos forgain features that plagues the Animated feature list. Also get rid of stop-motion film as calling them animated films I personally think is misleading. The other list that deals with American Animated features deels only with them in partal such as the Disney Animated feature list My main basis for this list is Jerry Beck is book and "my" list is correct up too 1970. The year 1971 and beyhound will be more pain in neck as we will run into films that were relesed to theaters, shown on TV or released strigt to Video/DVD. Everything currently inside the taple is correct but every thing that is not still need a cleanup. DoctorHver (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than spending so much time on a separate redundant list, why not for instance convert List of animated feature-length films into a table that's sortable by country? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS I said this is fair from redundant list, only thing that is strange (redundant) about this delete nominee is that it is only your fourth overall edit from your 2 day old account (contributions), so admin should take that into account when he makes the verdit. I would say that American Animated films diverse better than having no article on their own since they have been the bechmark of Animated films around the world. The list could also solve the problem over at the Disney Animated feature list as people that don't have clue comes in there often and add films that don't belong such as Anastasia. The problem over at Animated feature films list, is bigger than I can handle of my own as there lots of forgain features that don't have any vaild socurce that exist so it is actually better to make seprate list for American (USA) films only, also there buncy of morons like (Esn), that dont agree with any improvement sugestion, Im just dumfonded that he dont seems ot see that list is very unreaderfreindly mislinding and confusing. on side note I know that Jerry Beck is book include forgain films but those are only document that makes American theaters. BUt THink is only fair that it exist on the internet list that makes up for Jerry's "Error" and focus only on American Animated Feture films (Films produced by USA citizen). DoctorHver (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cow has over 100 edits stretching back to February. Not sure where you got the "two-day-old" account bit from. Reyk _YO! 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of animated feature-length films covers this content, and the separating out of US films seems redundant to this list, as the films there show their national origin (thats a good addition to the list to distinguish it from a category). I would suggest that the article creator and anyone else (including myself) be sure that all the films which are on our debated list which arent categorized as "american animated films" are put in Category:American animated films, as some are not. I can also see the value of a further category of American animated feature films, to distinguish from shorts. the various studios have such categories. I think userfying and then checking the films for their categorization would be nice. also, the aforementioned list needs extensive work anyway, so lets get that list cleaned up before considering sub lists that dont add content. I understand if the article creator wants american films highlighted in some way, and maybe they could petition someone to make the list sortable if they dont have that skill (i wouldnt know how or have the time to do it).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:53, 11 July 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 merge to Mercenaries (BattleTech)#Gray Death Legion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Death Legion

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been over two years since the last AFD was closed to cleanup and nothing much has improved. It still (quoting the original nominator) "covers a fictional mercenary organization with no out-of-universe information and no real-world notability." Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, nothing has changed: the article is still in need of rescuing - but notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Mercenaries (BattleTech)#Gray Death Legion. The article is entirely in-universe. I can find no independent reliable sources writing about this legion. As such, it fails to establish independent notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 6 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge: per whpq. No independent sources to WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:00, 11 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mia McKenna Bruce

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Anderson

Contested PROD, child actor; does not appear notable, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:BIO, I have particular concern over the WP:BLP issues regarding this 12-year-old non-public figure. Chzz ► 13:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 5 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally non-notable, lack of RS, basically what Chzz said. Anemone Projectors 01:33, 11 July 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Records

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through bands. Codf1977 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject of article is the record label for numerous notable entities. Nominator has been going through these articles like a scourge and refuses to look for sources before seeking deletion or to consider deletion alternatives like merges. his activity is highly disruptive and damaging to the encyclopedia. Many of his speedy deletion noms and AfDs have already been noted as being out of line. He needs to slow down and collaborate on improving the encyclopedia instead of flooding other editors with the work load he refuses to engage in. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:09, 14 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Azerelli

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

Non-notable painter Prove you wrong (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Biography of a living person with no footnotes. Only source is his own website. Is he worthy or unworthy of inclusion? I dunno. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no sources searching in any language. In Russian and Azeri there are just trivial mentions like [49] or [50]. cab (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously vandalism. Also see Yusif Alizadeh. --Werewolf Bar Mitzvah (talk) 13:31, 12 July 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) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Alizadeh

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

Unnotable painter. Prove you wrong (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the article, he painted his first notable work 17 years before he was born and had produced six notable works before he was a year old! An impressive individual indeed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 7 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There should be a research check on that, I think there was some vandals involved. How can someone do an impressive work of art 17 years before birth? Very strange. Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the history of the article, it seems this error has been there since the very beginning. cab (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is supposed to be about an artist. In Russian I can find coverage of a failed political candidate [51], an agricultural businessman [52], the head of a society for Iranian Azeris in Baku [53], etc. by the same name, but no mentions of an artist. Similarly in Azeri, most of the mentions appear to be for a film director, and I see no coverage of an artist (though I read Azeri quite poorly). cab (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vandalism. Somebody made up a name and a story to go with it, inserting cues (anachronism) that it's fake. --Werewolf Bar Mitzvah (talk) 13:32, 12 July 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. No sources have been provided in support of notability claims. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geico spa

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

I don't think this company meets the level of notability required. That the article is adverty in tone doesn't help, although this isn't a reason for deletion on its own. I would have nominated it for a speedy delete but it makes (unsourced) claims of notability, so brought here for more input. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find mentions of the company in Google but not actual coverage. It also doesn't help that the only real editors to the article are two sockpuppets that haven't been around since April 2007. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a 100+ year old Italian company leader on the Italian market in the field of automotive paint plants. Clearly notable. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article the company was founded in 1963. Do you have a source that says its a) 100+ years old and b) the market leader? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:34, 9 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right on the first page of the website of the company. [54]. Also in the history part --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 03:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that says Carrier started in 1905, not Geico spa. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all I can find are press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 17 July 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Barcia

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

Primary-sourced contested BLP PROD, does not assert notability through significant coverage in independent reliable sources; not neutral, advert-like. Chzz ► 10:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with reservations The article is a mess. It is in need of dire neutral editing, however, one of the links at PicassoMio gives us this as a portion of an artist biography on the site:

The artist's many SOLO EXHIBITIONS include: 2001 - Retrospective, Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago, Chile. - Galeria de Talca, Talca, Chile. 1998 - Commenoz Gallery, Key Biscane, USA. 1995 - Talca University, Talca. - Municipal Gallery, Osorno, Chile. 1990 - Providencia Cultural Institute, Santiago. 1987 - Museo Lyon, Valparaiso, Chile. 1985 - Galeria Praxis, Santiago. 1984 Galeria La Pluma, Bogota, Colombia. 1983 - Museo de Medellin, Colombia. - "Barcia en el Paisaje" (?Barcia in the Landscape?), Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago. 1981 - Museo Luis Angel Arango, Bogota. 1980 - Banco de Fomento, Valparaiso. - Galeria de Pintores Andinos, Bogota. - Salon del Banco de la Republica, Bogota. 1977 - Gallery Classic, Beverly Hills, USA. 1975 - Galeria Fidel Angulo, Santiago. 1974 - Museo Municipal de Bellas Artes, Valparaiso. 1970 - Galeria Michelena, Caracas, Venezuela. 1969 - Casa de la Cultura, Ministerio de Educacion, Santiago. 1966 - Sala Calicanto, Santiago. - Sala Nahuel, Santiago. 1965 -North American Institute of Chile, Santiago. 1962 - Sala del Banco de Chile, Santiago.

The following MUSEUMS have examples of Barcia's work - Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago, Chile. - Concepcion University, Chile. - Museo Nacional de Caracas. - Museo de Medellin, Colombia. - Denver Museum, Colorado, USA. - Museo Nacional de Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. - Museo Luis Angel Arango, Bogota. - Museo de Arte Moderno de Bogota.

Throughout his career, Barcia received numerous AWARDS including: 1990 First Prize, Pintando Valparaiso 1989 First Prize, Salon Entel, Santiago 1976 First Prize, National Competition, Museo de Arte Contemporaneo, Santiago 1975 National Critic's Prize 1975 Honorary mention. Salon Colocadora de Valores. Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago 1970 Diploma, Federico Santa Maria University, Museo de Bellas Artes, Viña del Mar 1969 First Prize, Salon del Mar, Valparaiso 1968 Honorary prize, Offical Autumn Salon, Valparaiso 1966 Gold medal, Oficial Winter Salon, Valparaiso 1964 Honorary mention, Spring Salon. Casa de la Cultura, Ã?uñoa, Santiago 1962 Honorary mention, Nacional Salon, Santia

Conclusion: Notability seems well established, however without serious cleanup, the article obviously does not adhere to Wikipedia style standards in the least. I thought I was reading something written by Salvadore Dali for a minute there. Very heady. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per notability as demonstrated above. The article needs work though...Modernist (talk) 21:33, 8 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per remarks above...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 11 July 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 - or at least no consensus for deletion. JForget 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panic (company)

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

From speedy. Does not appear to be notable as it lacks second-party refs. However... there is a category Category:Panic software which has seven bluelinked articles. So I think a company that has seven products with articles might itself be notable. Hard to find refs, but "panic" is a fairly common term so this makes it hard. I do believe that the company is probably not notable, but it does deserve an AfD. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(for now). The blue links in the category seem to have notability established, so this company should too. However, due to the name of the company, all I can find when I search for sources are a bunch of Douglas Adams references, however, I am no good at finding sources anyway. I would say keep, tag as needing sources, give a little bit for sources to be gathered, and if none can be gathered, then we'll address the AfD again at that time. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barely notable, but err on the side of caution and keep. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to comply with Verifiability rule, General Notability guideline and its advertisement nature. Also nominate and delete all the product articles of this company, as they are equally not notable and are for advertisement only. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 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, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe they are notable, here are some sources: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. I'll work these into the article if the article is not deleted. Nuujinn (talk) 15:18, 17 July 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by RTÉ

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

A mostly unreferenced list of supposed programming broadcast by RTÉ. Half of the articles are red-linked and some out of date. It would be impossible to find references for all of these programmes. — Cargoking talk 09:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 July 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) 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Serves as navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP for linked articles (that many are redlinked is irrelevant, they should be either bluelinked or blacklinked if not notable enough for own article) that cannot be satisfied by a cat. In the same vein, additional information can be provided, such as production years, short description , budget, et cetera. Compare with List of BBC programs or List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC, for instance ^walk victor falk^talk 12:19, 17 July 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.