Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 3

< 2 June	4 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Azem Hajdari. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besim Çera

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

Sub-stub on a non-notable murder victim. A bodyguard who happened to be killed together with the politician he was guarding, in a politican assassination. No further biographical detail about the guard, no personal grounds for notability, beyond that of the politician. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and add the following:

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

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all three stubs to Azem Hajdari: wp:Oneevent case, I don't see any expansion possibilities. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edmond Zisi doesn't seem to be associated with Hajdari, only Neza and Çera are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edmond Zisi is expanded, other two reserves a redirect --Vinie007 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Looks like WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Besim Çera and Zenel Neza to Azem Hajdari. Keep Edmond Zisi. Incidentally, I don't really think it's appropriate for someone to tack-on articles to an Afd he or she didn't initiate; particularly when there is no reason given for it. Location (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besim Çera and Zenel Neza. Really no point in keeping obscure names as redirects. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Change my opinion to Redirect as per above. Don't want this one to get stuck as "no consensus". -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Edmond Zisi article: this is unrelated to the other articles, and it is unfortunate and confusing that someone has attempted to include it in this AfD discussion. --Lambiam 22:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Besim Çera and Zenel Neza to Azem Hajdari. Redirects are cheap, and these are conceivable and proper search terms. --Lambiam 22:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dragon Gate USA. This is inadequately sourced so the outcome is a clear Delete but the proposal to redirect after deletion is sound. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGUSA United We Stand

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

I can't find reliable sources which are independent to demonstrate that this is a notable event for Wikipedia to include. As I nominate this article, there are four references: one from 411mania.com (I can find no evidence that the writer of that article is anything other than a wrestling fan who has written on a few blogs); one from prowrestlinghistory.com (no evidence that this is anything other than a fan site of wrestling); one from pwtorch.com (this might be a better source, but again no evidence that it meets the WP:RS criteria); one from onlineworldofwrestling.com (which says here 'The Online World of Wrestling Website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans. Sure we get imput from the workers themselves but really everything on the site is for you, the average mark'). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I found plenty of links with stuff to do with the subject at hand. I find it funny that you are wasting your time with an article with references when there are articles without references... But I bet if there were no references you wouldn't bother with it. The article will be re-created anyways and it's a POV when it comes to your opinion on the references. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard it as wasting my time. The fact that it has references means nothing if those references are at sources which do not meet the reliable sources criteria.
As for "if there were no references" - if there had been none at all, I would have looked for some reliable ones at independent sources; if I had found none, I would have nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monster_Truck_Destruction for example) - having no references or having references at sources which do not meet the criteria is the same thing.
You may have "found plenty of links with stuff to do with the subject at hand" - I did too... but again, they didn't meet the reliability criteria and/or the independent criteria. If I did a search for my full name on Google, I get 7330 hits - but that does not indicate that I am notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references are not reliable sources. Thus the article fails the general notability guideline by not having sufficient independent sources. Additionally, stating "the article will be recreated" is not a reason for keeping the article. If it is recreated, it can be speedily deleted per CSD G4 and salted if necessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Gate USA and possibly expand the list of events with some details from this article. The Steve 07:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have no objection to the closing admin redirecting - but I don't feel the detail needs to be expanded to what is already in that article. Personally, I think a better place for the detail in the current article would be the Pro Wrestling Wiki, as a more specialist wiki for the area PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect I do not think there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - which is why, 30 May, I PRODded it; I explained my thoughs on my talk page, now in User talk:Chzz/Archive_32#DGUSA reliable source. Chzz ► 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't actually know for sure as you said you think. So unless you know for sure, we can't go off what you think in this instance. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CBD 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cort

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

Cort fails criteria of notability for biographies. These are the claims to notability: losing with 6.21% in an Alabama State House election, coming in last with 3 delegate votes in a Texas straw poll, and gaining 1,200 votes in the 2008 presidential primaries (and zero in in the Republican Iowa caucus); as for GNG, mere mentions and a local news profile that discuss him as someone's great-great grandson don't constitute substantial coverage. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BLP and WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is simply not enough to warrant an article. Non-notable figure.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to cross the notability threshold or meet WP:POLITICIAN. It's so fascinating at how un-notable he was as a Presidential candidate that he almost loops back around to notability for being such a failure... but only almost. - Dravecky (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. This needs to be listed at WP:MFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lettuce

Fails WP:P1. "Inspiration" appears to have come straight from a once-broken link on this popular tumblr blog. There appear to also be a few subpages by the same user. --Volleyren (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — P1 states "Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article." and I don't think lettuce is subject to speedy deletion Baseball Watcher 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be at WP:MFD ? 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Subject item is a portal and not an article. As pointed out by 184.144.168.112, this properly belongs at WP:MFD. And there is no AFD notice on the portal page to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Clearly not ready/suitable for mainspace but if the writer is still interested once they got their grade then userfication and fixing sound better then outright deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POLENG

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

Lack of Notability of company (not even a hit on Google) and the article is written as an advertisement. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#POLENG. Doesn't seem notable, more like a promo. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Thanks for finding the pl article on Transatlantica. At the current stage, we could consider moving this article to Translatica, rewriting could be as simple as moving the sections around. Is Transatlantica notable? I am not sure; pl:Translatica has many refs but almost all are from Translatica website. Sigh. If I wasn't an inclusionist I'd consider AfD-ing that on pl wiki and seeing how the discussion goes. Btw, Google Book search shows 1-2 mentions of the company and its product ([1]). Not much, but still... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is their website; I'm not sure if there's much by way of secondary sources about the company, though their main claim to fame seems to be developing the Translatica software (though I'm also not sure how roles in that divide between this company and pwn.pl). Perhaps we should follow Polish Wikipedia and have an article on pl:Translatica but not POLENG.--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the article author ought to translate and create the Translatica article and we should speedy delete the POLENG article. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the Author of this article, it's not promotional - I didn't meant it to be like that. I have an assignment for my Machine translation classes at University of Bremen to create an article in Wikipedia about One of the chosen by teacher companies. I'll edit it today so you can see if the changes are good to go. I hope you won't delete it, because I won't get a grade for it...

Your sincerely, M.

I suggest you create an article on Translatica software package itself. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may wish to peruse Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination and Wikipedia:School and university projects, and suggest that your teacher have a look at it as well. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorComment I've made some changes in this article I hope they'll fit, you can read it once again and I'm waiting for suggestions. I hope it will be good this time. If not, and it fits better for "Translatica" I'll change the name of the article. But Please please please don't delete it till wednesday evening, than after that if it's still wrong you can delete it. But I hope we will find a way out of it soon. Gotta go to work

your sincerely, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myszeida (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Is your teacher aware of the Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:Ambassador program? Does s/he has an account on English Wikipedia? Please let him/her know that we offer guidance to educators so that their students would not have to worry about articles being deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If deleted, I recommend moving to user space, something like User:Myszeida/POLENG, so the student still has a URL to give their professor. It can be deleted from there later, if necessary. We can then work out a better course plan with the professor for the future. Dcoetzee 17:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A nice idea, although I think the student got the grade yesterday (Wen), and his comments suggest he doesn't care what happens to the article afterward :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue (Oxford University)

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

Current contestants on the show Britain's Got Talent. There are 35 refs in the article but not a single one ~~is reliable~~ demonstrates notability (I checked them all), they are either local newspaper articles, dead links, webzines, or reviews from the fringe. Tagged as COI, written like an advert and more refs required. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local newspapers are quite likely to be reliable sources. In particular, the Oxford Mail certainly is. One of the sources is the Daily Telegraph, a serious national newspaper. The BBC is a reliable source. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Helps if you follow the cites to their destination. Oxford Mail goes somewhere weird, Telegraph is dead and BBC is dead. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Oxford Mail link looks OK to me; BBC link is OK; agree that Telegraph is dead, but is now here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also OK. And I repeat, local newspapers are in general reliable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked them all. They're trivial - one sentence mentions that mention they played somewhere. None of those establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly reasonable assessment, but it is different to what you said before ("not a single one is reliable"). You might like to consider revising the nomination, striking through anything you want to change. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, have amended the nomination. Szzuk (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a keep or delete opinion? The Keeps below haven't added anything much to the discussion. Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in a second nomination, it helps to say what, if anything, has changed since the first closed as "keep". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Didn't pass GNG first time around. The lack of reliable sources was ignored. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination seems to be mainly about article issues that could be fixed. What is it that suggests deletion as opposed to cleanup? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I checked the sources closely and don't believe they allow the article to pass GNG. I'm inviting editors to check the sources more closely, the tags are there and invite closer attention. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing for deletion on the grounds of non-notability then as well as the general notability guidelines you also want to consider whether the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Teamvillage in the previous nomination: Over here in the UK, they are by far the most notable college a cappella group in the country, which the competition results and reviews go a long way to proving. They may not be as notable in the US, but it's not their fault they are not based there! In any case they satisfy the criteria so should remain. The Steve 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm from the UK. In that case suggest tongue in cheek - we delete the article until they've moved to the US. Szzuk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular Wikipedia consumer, the page looks ok to me...so can't honestly see what all the fuss is about, surely deletion is a little extreme?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.196.57 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Warden (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you didn't read any of the references. Which ones demonstrate notability? Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a problem with the fact that this article has existed for nearly five years and now its up for deletion. Why now after all those years? To be fair the article has some breath for an article which is up for deletion. Needs quite a bit of work though. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above. Seems highly drastic to delete. As an acapella group they are notable. Maybe more citations can be added and article improved, but keep as opposed to delete. Feudonym (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This group appeared on Britains Got Talent the other night and were voted out, and they wont become famous again.Popeye4buzz (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read the article? The group was well established before the current incarnation appeared on BGT. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was very interested to read about out of the blue and I am sure others will as will so leave well slone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.109.208 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Keep On the original sources, I agree it was a delete. But a quick hunt through more recent news sources off the back of Britain's Got Talent reveals at least three more which give the group more than a passing mention. It's still pretty slim, in my view. Nevertheless, there are multiple reliable (at least on this sort of topic, I wouldn't trust them on international politics!) sources which provide sufficiently significant coverage. The SunThe Daily MailThe Telegraph GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A very definite keep. The group has been going for 11 years and has won awards so is hardly a flash in the pan. Who is to say that they will not stay in the public eye merely because they got voted off BGT in the semi-final? --Shylocksboy (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Collins

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

Delete? There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. He has some credits as a voice actor and as a video game sound designer but I am insufficiently knowledgeable about them to determine whether these get him past specific notability guidelines for performers or creative personnel. I tend to be leery anyway about articles for people that are based on activities alone and have no reliable outside sources. Brought here for community consensus. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited from the company he works/worked for. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find him mentioned in any reliable 3rd party sources on the web. I suspect he's just not notable enough, at least for now. --Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cassell

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

Barely sourced BLP of a seemingly non-notable singer. I challenged an A7 on it as it asserts notability, but the single cited source isn't enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO and I couldn't find anything else by searching. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per wp standards. Though it will of course be a shame to deprive the wp readership of the assertion in the article that: "Under the name Tommy Sinatra he has made a name for himself in the sports handicapping community of Las Vegas NV especially with respect to MLB and NFL."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets no aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. treated as a prod given low participation in AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Bedford Band

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

Unreferenced and insufficient assertion of notability to expect to find references. (2160 googles but spot check of first few did not show anything obviously relevant.) RJFJR (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—There's mention of the band in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner,[2] The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and various news notices for local appearances, but it is not clear this group satisfies WP:BAND. The best solution might be a merge/redirect to Artisan (group).—RJH (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monajat (software)

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

A computer application which "popups Islamic prayers (azkar) every predetermind time" that does does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (software). I am unable to find any reliable, third-party sources or reviews that discuss the application and would indicate importance. France3470 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial Independent coverage required by WP:GNG has not been presented here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Craigslist. Advertise somewhere else. We are getting obscure pop musicians, painters without brushes etc. also all using Wikipedia. Must stop. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Sabily as it fails notability per WP:ORG. It has one source that attests that it exists but there are no other reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the product nor claims of notability per WP:VERIFY.--Michaela den (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Southern Border region. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego–Imperial (California)

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

The two counties seem to only be used in conjunction with each other for simple geographic uses and the term San Diego-Imperial maintains little to no significance or common use amongst officials or the general populace except for the a fore mentioned reasons. An analogy would be that even though California and Nevada are adjacent to one another and maintain a similar geography, there is no "California-Nevada" article. Thus it would seem sufficient that a sub-section on San Diego-Imperial county relations could simply be added to the prose of each. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Historically Imperial County was once part of San Diego County, and it appears that several major organizations use the former jurisdiction bounderies as the basis of their own, such such as the Boy Scouts of America. an the Roman Catholic Church's Diocese of San Diego. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to San Diego metropolitan area. Neutrality^talk 03:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only concern I have is that the article that you propose the merger to occur to is that it is also a redirect of the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA, of which Imperial County is not a part of. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that's correct. Delete. Neutrality^talk 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability as a concept. I have never seen any point to this article, which is about a "region" that doesn't really exist as a region. The article was subject to an earlier deletion discussion under its original name, "Southern Border (California)"; the result was "no consensus" plus the suggested rename. At that time the article was a huge mass of unrelated information copy-pasted from the San Diego County and Imperial County articles. It has since been trimmed of all the fat, and now its main focus appears to be attempting to prove that San Diego-Imperial is actually a real concept or real entity. IMO it fails in that attempt; there is no such entity. Of the references given, only reference 2 actually talks about the two counties as a unit; it is an obscure state economic report which discusses the state in terms of a dozen or so regions, and its region called "southern border" was the original inspiration (and only justification) for the original article. The other references do not verify the existence of the concept and do not discuss "San Diego-Imperial County relations". For example, reference 1 is a study commissioned by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce about the effect of an additional border crossing in San Diego County, and the effect it would have on San Diego County and other California counties including Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Sacramento County - but it doesn't even mention Imperial County that I could find! Similarly, reference 4 is a report from SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, and does not appear to mention or include Imperial County.
In response to suggestions above, it's true that Imperial County was once part of San Diego County, but so were Riverside, Inyo, and San Bernardino counties; anyhow Imperial has been a separate county for more than a hundred years. A few San Diego-based branch operations of nonprofits take in Imperial County as well as San Diego County, but that's largely a matter of convenience, because Imperial County isn't populous enough to maintain a full-fledged branch of its own.
One other comment: don't redirect to San Diego Metropolitan Area as Neutrality suggested, because the San Diego Metropolitan Area does not include Imperial County by anyone's definition. Delete this and be done with it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Somebody just created Southern Border region - basically a recreation of the original article Southern Border that got moved to Southern Border (California) and eventually became this one. I was about to nominate the new article for speedy deletion, but to my surprise it is a well developed article that almost persuades me that the region is real. At least, the state of California has continued to use it for economic analysis, and the new article makes it clear that is what it's about. I wouldn't object to keeping the content of the new article and redirecting this article to it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment Interesting to see "fails verifiability as a concept". Seems like I argued this to no avail with the author of the quote for City Seminary which survived AfD with zero unambiguous references. Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens - still harping on that issue from months ago? "Argued to no avail" is correct; the closing administrator didn't buy your argument either, as I recall. --MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment This is the second nomination for the article in the last seven weeks. The nominator of the previous AfD moved the article from Southern Border (California) after the AfD. Since the previous AfD had some strong support, the move seems to have had the effect that the article is less notable than the article was before the move. Does either "Southern Border" or "San Diego–Imperial" exist? I was surprised to see the number of Ghits for San Diego–Imperial. I also looked at the previous name, and found that it was not "Southern Border" but "Southern Border region" that is the name of the geopolitical area created by the state. There are 37 web sites at ca.gov that identify "Southern Border region". These are easy to identify in a wider Google search because they use capital letters. It also appears in a Google book and a Google scholar reference. So did or does "Southern Border" exist? I don't think so. So I've created Southern Border region, in which it is also not clear that anyone would say that they live there, but it is a well-identified, well-studied and documented geopolitical region, not unlike South Coast Air Basin, Edward_F._Ricketts_State_Marine_Conservation_Area, and Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). The later survived AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). In summary, given the existence of Southern Border region, should we save Southern Border (California) with the old edit history and the references as a redirect? Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think your new article Southern Border region is better written and much more defensible than the one under discussion here. However, if that content is kept, I think the name needs to be changed in some way to indicate that it means the southern border region of California. --MelanieN (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the article Unscintillating. Again I'm surprised by the appearance of reliable references. Regardless, the discussion regarding it's naming should take place at that articles talk page - not here. This is for the afd of San Diego-Imperial, which in my eyes doesn't relate to the Southern Border region. San Diego-Imperials focus seemed to be on geography and not economics. So I would say, in response to your comment, its history is not needed because it seems irrelevant. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 20:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see discussion is already taking place at the talk page of Southern Border region. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to anywhere to preserve the edit history, including) to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California This topic may be notable (with more research) as an amalgam and it relates to a category, Category:San Diego–Imperial, California, that is currently in use. I think the previous titles "Southern Border" and "Southern Border (California)" were misnomers based on a history that started with a music band, but it would be easy to make an argument that reliable sources (documented at Southern Border region) support their existence and notability. My biggest problem with deletion is that only administrators would then be able to use the edit history as a reference, it is useful for multiple reasons including understanding this and the previous AfD and current discussion at Talk:Southern Border region, and there is nothing in this edit history that needs to be hidden. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly this article could and possibly should be redirected to preserve its convoluted editing history. But not to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California. In the first place, redirecting an article to a category makes little sense, and in the second place, I have nominated that category for deletion as serving no purpose that is not already served by Category:San Diego County, California and Category:Imperial County, California. I would suggest a redirect to the new article Southern Border region or whatever it ends up being called. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Networking Websites Blocker

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

Non-notable software, no Google or Google News hits except here and at its development site (SourceForge). TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And also delete the redirect from Socialnetblock).

Delete. per nom.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it definitely doesn't meet the notability guidelines. --SuperEditor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator has requested deletion — See this diff. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

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

Article has 31 sources and contains a lot of red links, not enough to have a separate article. JJ98 (Talk) 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close as no policy has been cited What?! Possibly the worst deletion rationale I've ever read. Which POLICY does this violate to deserve deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wedding_Peach#Characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Lily

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

Article has no references WP:V, and appears to be just all WP:PLOT Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ou-of-universe relevance, no reliable sources ==> no notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding_Peach#Characters per WP:BEFORE. This is a plausible search term. --Malkinann (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding Peach because redirects are cheep and some consent may be salvageable. —Farix (t | c) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wedding_Peach#Characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Peach (character)

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

Article has no references WP:V, and appears to be just all WP:PLOT Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ou-of-universe relevance, no reliable sources ==> no notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding_Peach#Characters this appears to be the primary character of the series and is covered in that article.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding Peach, this is the title character of the series and redirects are cheep. —Farix (t | c) 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory

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

Completely unsourced, this article has no third party or real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 17:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe relevance, no reliable sources ==> no notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources of these characters. --Anthem 19:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why was the first AFD discussion on this article closed? Lord Arador (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated myself since and I've withdrawn it. Since the article doesn't have no sources, it may be the best is to merge into Dexter's Laboratory since it doesn't meet or have enough notability guidelines for fictional characters. See WP:WAF and WP:N for more information. JJ98 (Talk) 19:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of extensive, unsourced fictional character biographies that contain trivial facts and little to no relevance to the average reader. Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 00:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after a massive trimming to Dexter's Laboratory. Article is currently 25,000 bytes, target is 31,760 bytes. Depending on how much is cut, the total after merger will be between 33,000 and 36,000 bytes. That is well under our suggested length. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - this article is typical unsourced list fluff. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deer Stags Baseball Club

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

Seemingly non-notable local amateur team. Only sources online are a few local ones, nothing far-reaching. While a couple things noted on the article might show notability, I could not find a source for any of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are only a few trivial mentions of this organization, with few third party sources to even confirm it's existence. It is a local club with no claims of notability. Lord Arador (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom Baseball Watcher 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG by lacking multiple WP:Independent sources with significant coverage. The article only cites the organization's own website. I found coverage in a local paper, but per WP:ORG, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary" —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Williams

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

BLPPROD derailed by author inserting Unreliable sources and IMDB link as justification. Notability of actress as is questionable is questionable (as per WP:NACTOR) Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR. A Google search has been unable to find anything reliable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than a single passing mention in a cast listing (page 15 of The Holocaust Film Sourcebook: Fiction), I was unable to find anything reliable on this actress, which puts this article a fair ways from having met WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhandari

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

Unreferenced Biography that has carefully dodged attempts to delete this article. Previous AfD nomination was Speedy Closed prior to closure of the AfD discussion. Article was restored and Userfied so that an interested editor could work on it. 3 hours later the editor moves the article back to the mainspace (with no substantial improvements). This article needs to be deleted and stay deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Sad to say, this stub is an improvement over what was originally speedied; that does not however indicate notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's no longer a resume, which is good. It's still unreferenced and non-notable, which is bad. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick search provided some hits but I think they refer to another individual(s). Given the circumstances and the very recent AfD, I don't think a more thorough search would yield something, but usual caveats applies - frankie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The original AfD would have closed today had it not been speedied and that's how I discovered it. Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete It has been revised to be consistent with Biographies of Living Persons (BLP), consistent with guidelines including NPOV, V and NOR and consistent with thousands of similar BLP pages. OTRS permission was provided and verified. It is now well referenced and notable. Hasteur - the page was moved to mainspace and heavily edited to its current version so admins would be able to clearly see the edits from the page that was previously deleted and what the changes were to make it compliant and referenced BLP. Mangopr (talk) — 3 June 2011 comment added 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The WP:REFUND is supposed to be used so you can improve the article prior to moving back to mainspace.
Because most of the BLP violating items have been removed the claim to notability for this BLP is not enough for Wikipedia standards.
All BLPs must have a cited assertion that comes from a reliable source in which the subject is a significant portion of the source and not a passing mention.
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why comparing to other articles is anappropriate.

For these reasons, the article is not in conformity with the standards you quoted above and therefor should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Hasteur - OK I now understand about WP:REFUND. Was not aware of it earlier. No harm done since the article was heavily edited with intention to making it compliant taking your feedback into account. Each line in the BLP's has cited assertions from reliable sources including national newspapers that speak to the specific assertion in the article. You also point out that BLP violating items have been removed. OTRS permission was provided and verified. The article is consistent with NPOV, V and NOR. Yet after all the edits to bring the article in compliance - your recommendation remains unchanged. What gives? Frankly your recommendation does not seem fair or reasonable. How would you rewrite it to conform to Wikipedia standards? I think it will be helpful for everyone to see how you would edit it make it compliant. Mangopr (talk) — 5 June 2011 comment added 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of un-bolding your !vote and striking it as editors are not allowed 2 votes at this discussion. A corporate biography of the subject from their own company does not qualify as an Independent Reliable source. Your edits to add this link and a significant portion of Accenture's business info (which the subject works for) does not solve the basic BLP Ref Problem. Like I (and others have said before), the problem is that with all the BLP violations and improper links removed this stub article does not demonstrate enough notability to qualify for a BLP inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This needs be the last time this article should be nominated, as like the first time this article is unreliable and vague aside from a bizjournals page which doesn't say much about him. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 Black Dudes & an Open Mic

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

This article about a comedy show in Chicago contains no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search only reveals some blog posts about the group; I couldn't find any outside, reliable coverage, which leads me to believe that this comedy show is not notable per WP:GNG. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Have to agree with nom Baseball Watcher 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Collection

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

Non-notable private collection lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Unable to establish independent, verifiable, secondary reliable sources for the article. Fails to establish WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Before having the article deleted, I think it's wise to have an editor with at least five or more years of experience, plus an administrator if possible, get involved in this discussion. I really don't see where the page The Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Collection isn't notable, and particularly that there aren't verifiable primary (or secondary, for that matter) sources for his collection. I think the bibliographical section should be expanded to more clearly show verification. Timeinabottle8615 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please note that "real-world" notability differs from Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notability is established by meeting the criteria in WP:N or an associated notability article. The article currently lacks independent, verifiable, secondary reliable sources and it appears there are no such references available. If you are aware of the existence such references, please provide them. You comment that expansion of the individual's bio will verify the article is not valid – the individual might be notable, but notability is not inherited. ttonyb (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all convinced that notability has been established here, despite the long list of references which merely mention the collection - or rather its artifacts - in passing. I am also concerned about the ongoing promotional/COI issues here. --DAJF (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Raleigh DeGeer Amyx. The Steve 07:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete and I'm plumping for keep because there is no disagreement that an article is sitting here somewhere. To me it seems before to refer this back to the article talk page for an editorial agreement on how to handle this subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader

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

Re-nominated due to malformed previous listing. I am neutral as nominator. Previous reasoning by 60.242.159.224: I wish to nominate Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader for deletion, because I think it fails the notability requirements of Wikipedia. A Google search result failed to find any results for the book, and all of the sources on the page links to Chinese webpages. The page's creator said on the talk page that the book's Google search has to be done in its Chinese name, but I don't think this is in accordance with policies on a English language Wikipedia. doomgaze (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is the memoir of a Tsinghua University Red Guard leader, recording detail armed fighting between rival students group. The book is published in Chinese, the title of this article is a direct translation of the original name, that is why a Google search in English would show a zero result. Arilang ^talk 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten thousand students fought for one hundred days in a campus using guns, hand grenades and other weapons. That sounds interesting, but I unfortunately do not know Chinese. Do we have an article about the event rather than about the book? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not, as there aren't many bilingual editors who are interested in Cultural revolution. Arilang ^talk 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my point: the event is more notable and important than a book about event. If you make an article about the event, describe the event and refer to several sources (including this book), no one will delete it (you may even use the picture of the book). As a reader I would like to learn why exactly did they fight and what had actually happened. I do not think that creating articles about sources and lists of sources was a good idea, although an article about a really notable book would be fine. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many events happen during CR is still a taboo in China, and the western so called "Sinologist" just have no idea what really happened then. It is not a good idea to write anything about CR, simply because there are too many Maoist jargons:List of Maoist China rhetoric and political slogans for any westerner to see through the mist. It is just too difficult, but potentially university degree thesis material. Another reason this book is more important than the event itself, writer needs a fair bit of courage to fence off the government's censorship. Since not many Chinese do have the courage, and as time past many CR Red Guards would get old and die, this part of the history will be lost forever. Arilang ^talk 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You give some reasons why you think the book is more important, but the article doesn't talk about the importance of the book. If you had sources that you could quote on why the book itself was so significant, then you might be able to write an article on the book. Cloveapple (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, Arilang still have told why the book meets notability requirements. Nobody on an English Wikipedia is going to bother reading through hundreds of pages of Chinese text. And Wikipedia isn't a place to spread your noble cause.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the notability of the book has problem, we can always change the name, like Tsinghua University Red Guards factions or similar names. I really do not see the reason to delete it, it is part of the important CR history. Arilang ^talk 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No !vote from me, but I do agree that the event is more notable than the book. An article on the actual event would be more suited towards Wikipedia. Readers don't want to know about a book written about a real-life event by reading an article about a book about an event, they want to read about the event itself. To me, this event resembles that of Battle Royale and readers may find it quite interesting, however BR is a fictional novel (which is why an article on the book exists) whilst this book is based on a real-life event (and so the standard of WP:N is not the same). However, regarding the original nom, there is nothing wrong with using Chinese references as per WP:NONENG. It is permitted to use Chinese-language sources if English-language sources are either not available or not of equal or superior quality, hence WP:RS and WP:V have been satisfactorily fulfilled as per Wikipedia's requirements. And finally, Arilang, weren't you supposed to take a short break from Wikipedia? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benlisquare, please use my talkpage for other discussion. Arilang ^talk 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

............... -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree that the event is more notable than the book. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that can be alternatively interpreted as Rename to ____, rewrite as event, right? Would you personally support a rewrite if the article turned out to be about the event? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be acceptable in this case, unless the book somehow made the New York Times Bestseller list, in which case the book would then be notable. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The book wouldn't have to be a best seller in the US to be notable. Peer reviewed academic commentary on the book would make it notable as would commentary about the book in reliable media sources. (I'm not saying the article has these now, just commenting on what it would take to make the book notable.) Cloveapple (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move The actual event looks notable enough to be an article subject. Cloveapple (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

List of peer reviews:

Arilang ^talk 23:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Not reading Chinese, I can't evaluate that list. (I had mentioned this kind of academic peer review above, but I've no idea if what you are listing is related to that.) If you do have sources that show the book is notable beyond the event it describes, they are not part of the current article. I can only base my judgement on the current article, which is more about the event than about the book. If you are really committed to an article on the book and can find sources for it why not work on it in your user space and see if you can create something more convincing later? But right now what you have is the beginning of an article on an event. Cloveapple (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those links above are about peer reviews of the book, I am not sure if there is English reviews at all. However, looking at Hua-Yi distinction and it's AfD rebate, there should be some Chinese English bi-lingual editors who are interested in this topic. That said, it is perfectly Ok with me if this article is to be renamed. Arilang ^talk 05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the book is not notable, though the event itself should have an article (or at least a mention on Tsinghua University's article). Specs112 t c 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book is highly regarded by Chinese historians doing research on Cultural Revolution, take Hua-Yi distinction as an example again, that topic is unknown to the western world, but a very important historical and social concept of China. Arilang ^talk 14:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here my lack of non-english skills bites me, as I cannot properly evaluate the subject. I'm inclined to agree, however, that an article on the event should come before the article on the book, and it's a gap in our coverage that it does not. I'm happy to AGF on the sources indicated, FWIW. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only rationale for deletion being made is that the subject is not notable simply because it yields no English search results, which is a common, understandable, and unfortunate mistake in gauging non-English subjects. — C M B J 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't expect English sources. I'm just hoping for some information in English to give everyone a rough idea of whether the Chinese sources are reliable sources. Could Arilang or anyone else give us (on the article talk page or here) a very rough idea of what each of the 4 sources listed above are. For example is a source a newspaper's website, an academic journal, a bookstore, a blog? Is it a book review or something else?Cloveapple (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These two look good [3] [4] - frankie (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually. I'm also happy to assume good faith on the sources. As pointed above, the subject of the book seems very notable, could be included at least at the university - frankie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on the AfD log and even though I don't have the time to become involved in the debate (at least until I finish marking these papers), I can offer assistance briefly on the sources.

From a quick skim:

清华四一四串联会成立的时机选择..（北京）朗钧: This source comes from a monthly publication known as 北京之春, Beijing Spring, named in reference to the period of loosening in the 1970s. According to their about page, they are based in New York and their purpose is to advance human rights and democracy in China. There is version in (good) English here (the PDF and the HTML below it are identical, the former in traditional characters and the latter in simplified characters)
清华园里的百日武斗: This is a link to a site called "China Review", associated with the Unirule Economics Research Institute, however, scrolling to the bottom one sees "本文原载：豆瓣网", which indicates that the article was originally published in the Douban website, which it is my understanding is a community website.
漫话沈如槐和蒯大富的文革回忆录: This is a Party site. The "theory" / "理论" is Marxist theory, and the review has a distinct negative bias; at certain points it seems to be mocking the book and its authors with varying degrees of overtness.
来源：社会科学论坛作者：唐少杰: This is a dead link (The page says: "The page you attempted to visit does not exist"). However ifeng is a mainstream and reliable source. It is not state run and reports on issues state television normally overlooks.

Intelligentsium 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good link from ifeng:“文革”群众权力争逐：签订和解协议立即被撕毁社会科学论坛作者：唐少杰

On Chinese wiki:清华大学百日大武斗.

Arilang ^talk 03:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename. It would be wrong to delete this simply because the book doesn't have a big profile at the moment. It would be much better to rename the article to reflect the event(s) that the book describes. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leese

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

Autobiography of person who does not meet WP notability requirements ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Linking to corporate websites does not equal notability ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it shows no evidence whatsoever of notability, and the edits are all by one user who doesn't edit other stuff. Honestly this could have been CSDed. Specs112 t c 14:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Giant Snowman 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 3 weeks with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles

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

This article brought me the attention of how much encyclopedic it is, it consists of a tournament graphic about the men whom qualified to for the men's single main draw, it infringes a lot of policies and was even under investigation for claims of copyright violation which its outcome I am declined to accept, and since this investigation the article was left incomplete, its context is not clear, you clearly cannot see what the article is all about, but there are more problems, it is a content fork which wikipedia is somewhat against (but not when the article and its navigation become either long or confusing because of its size what is not the case), the article's notability is also another thing to discuss, it is debatable to a minimum and if not is a case of inherit. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "claims of copyright violation" derive from the fact that the pages was created by Darius Dhlomo who was discovered to have created a lot of copyright infringements, so every article he ever created was blanked for investigation as a precaution. This article is not a copyright infringement (in fact most of the articles he created aren't), and indeed lists of sports statistics don't meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection anyway. It is obvious what the article is about and that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion in the first place. I cannot see how this is a content fork (of what, exactly?) and articles on sections of major tennis tournaments are very common. Hut 8.5 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles is a content fork of this 2005 US Open – Men's Singles. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content fork of that article. There's a difference between a content fork and a sub-article. Hut 8.5 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've browsed through US Open Tennis articles and found out that Qualifying sessions are not always present, it is something inconstant e.g. an article about 2005, 2007, 2009 US Open exist, but 2008, 2006, 2004, 2003 Qualifying don't. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? The fact they're not always present doesn't imply they never should be. Hut 8.5 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact? No, but they are all not notable, if I know how to mass nominee I'd nominee them all. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the qualifying tournaments are like a mini challenger tour event, which is notable. 400 not out (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's appropriate to strike the comment because the user was a sockpuppet, but it is definitely not appropriate to strike comments simply because you don't agree with them. Hut 8.5 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't strike the comment because I didn't agree with it, usually when a sockpuppet post a comment in an afd, it is regarded as void. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said you struck it partly because "it doesn't make any sense at all" [5]. That is not a valid reason to strike a comment. Hut 8.5 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke it because it doesn't make sense (not because I didn't agree with it as you stated above) and it is a vote by a sockpuppet and you removed my comment, that is sorta weird. Why doesn't it make any sense? Which mini challenger tour is notable in Wikipedia? Several articles about cups and tournaments feature the qualified teams or athletes within the main article, and when they have it apart the article is either a mess or it is huge, but in a way or in other the sub article does not provide enough context, can't you see that this is a content fork? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never removed any of your comments. You are arguing that the rationale of 400's comment above - that mini challenger tour events are notable - is flawed, which means you don't agree with it. As far as I can see the tennis rankings give as much weight to qualifying for the Grand Slam tournaments (such as this one) as to getting to the later stages of a tournament in the ATP Challenger Tour, the individual tournaments of which commonly have their own articles. It is standard practice to move content to a sub-article when the main article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Acceptable types of forking). Moving the content of this article would make it unacceptably long, so including it in a sub-article is perfectly acceptable and is not content forking. The article provides more than enough context for the reader to see what it is talking about, and even if it doesn't that's not a problem that merits deletion of the article. Hut 8.5 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I said delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying (closed as no consensus) which was about tournaments outside the top-25 yearly events, but there is much larger interest in qualifying for Grand Slams - the top-4 yearly events far above the rest. It should have been created with round 1 and 2 results but the qualifying finals is better than nothing. For some historic interest, this was the first time Andy Murray qualified for a Grand Slam (he got a wild card at the previous Wimbledon). There are no copyright or content fork concerns. It's a valid subtopic of 2005 US Open – Men's Singles which is a valid subtopic of 2005 US Open (tennis) and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. All of the nominee's points or vague, nonsensical or void. "it consists of a tournament graphic about the men whom qualified to for the men's single main draw" is hardly a criterion for deletion, "it infringes a lot of policies" fails to mention what policies, and it is neither a Copyvio nor a CFork. The only reasonable thing brought up in the nomination was how the article is incomplete, which is in no way a criterion for deletion, it is in a wiki rule, though I am in the process of updating it. Sellyme^Talk 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To remain in cohesion with the rest of Wikipedia, the article should be moved to 2005 US Open – Men's Singles Qualifying. Sellyme^Talk 10:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace & Charm

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

Like articles of other Kelly Chen's albums, Stylish Index's notability is absent. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons above:

Gh87 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love (Kelly Chen album). Leaving The Big Day (album) open for discussion. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I've tried a dozen times; the servers are too overloaded to respond. I see no reason for the next admin not to delete, though. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still having a tech problem deleting this particular article, but not others. Seems it doesn't want to go. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article for Grace & Charm (under discussion in this AfD) contains both that title and the title Stylish Index. It appears to me that those are two different albums in reality, or one is a re-release of the other. Also, a separate article for Stylish Index was already speedy deleted here. Beware of this mix-up when searching for sources. Anyone interested in cleaning out these articles might also want to take a look at Kelly Chen discography. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't charted, and the Google search parameters ""Grace & Charm kelly chen" -wikipedia -facebook -twitter -myspace -amazon -youtube -linkedin -ancestry -google.com -books.google.com" bring up 8 hits. I feel if the album were notable it would have brought more hits than that. Additionally, the artist herself hasn't charted according to Billboard. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Arcangel is correct about the sources, but Billboard is only an American chart, and Kelly Chen's success has been in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia, as stated in her article. If there is evidence that this album charted outside of the US, that would be a factor in this deletion discussion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's comment: I suspect those in this discussion have been searching for sources from the wrong places. The article concerns a Cantonese album in Hong Kong, but the deletion discussion revolves around evidence found from American (and other English-language) charts and sources. Therefore, I don't think the discussion has arrived at a valid consensus, and I'm relisting this discussion and cross-posting at WikiProject Hong Kong. Der yck C. 20:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Der yck C. 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." There are 4 major charts in Hong Kong (903, RTHK, 997, TVB), and songs from this album, particularly Chinese: 希望, have been #1 on 3 of the charts. T@vatar (discuss–?) 17:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why not including chart performances in the article? --Gh87 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have reworked this article ... added three refs to show the album exists and two major awards the track "希望" (Hope) have won in Hong Kong. Hopefully it is closer to meeting notability as per WP:NALBUMS.--Michaela den (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and/or Keep. There is a clear consensus that the content of these pages should be retained in some form. However, pages that have very little content and which are not likely to expand significantly should be merged (with a redirect from the current song page to the song's section on the new page) into the articles on the albums where they appear or some other appropriate page. Due to the mass nomination there was no separate consensus on which specific pages should be merged and this issue should therefor be further discussed for any pages where a merge may be appropriate. CBD 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Ladytron song)

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

Because Deepblue1 (talk · contribs) prefers to log out and continue with the same, I add to the nomination the next pages:

Runaway (Ladytron song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tomorrow (Ladytron song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ace of Hz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
White Elephant (Ladytron song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Commodore Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Way That I Found You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weekend (Ladytron song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He Took Her to a Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sugar (Ladytron song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Withdrawn

Delete No charts, no awards, no major sources, no covers by another notable artist(s), fails WP:NSONGS and/or WP:GNG. I tried to redirect them, and creator of all (except Ghost), an user who apparently has a COI with Ladytron, simple reverted me without solve the problem. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Creator' did not revert you. The creator was Martinellia (talk · contribs).--v/r - T P 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reworded. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These band is of course famous (I'm seeing them in London next week, bought my tickets months ago!) and the songs, while not as famous as some of their others, are still worthy of an article. They're a pretty famous band. Not just chart successes get Wikipedia pages if the band itself is this well known.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why you believe these songs pass WP:NSONGS is... Ladytron passes WP:NBAND, but very few of their songs are notables (e.g. Playgirl (Ladytron song) charted in the UK). Neither of these songs appear to be notable. Just because their author is notable does not mean that they are notables. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 18:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to the albums from which they were originally appeared. There is no indication that these individual songs are indivdually notable. Much of the content beyond the basic confirmation of being a Ladytron song is not referenced. To the extent that there is referenced material, or that material can be referenced, a merge to the parent album article would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of the content beyond the basic confirmation of being a Ladytron song is not referenced". The whole content is referenced: follow the link to Discogs site and you'll find the tracklisting, release date, formats, song lengths. These pages are about the singles from a pretty well known band (on last.fm they have over 700k listeners/over 22mil. plays) even if they don't have major hits. I admit some pages are not finished but what can you expect from articles created few days ago? Give them time to develop. I tried to upload some single covers but they were deleted. On a side note, I think the user Tbhotch has a problem with my edited pages. How would you feel is someone try to delete all your work without solid reasons? He was very insistent and made me angry. I don't think censorship is part of Wikipedia rules. Believe me, I don't earn any money from these pages edited by myself. There's no reason to delete these pages. Thanks. -- deepblue1 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS? ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ghosts, He Took Her to a Movie, and Sugar as they meet the notability criteria (Ghosts and Sugar charted and He Took... was named single of the week by NME) assuming they can be expanded from their current stub status. All the others can be Merged/Deleted unless their notability can be shown. KickingEdgarAllenPoe (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the albums they come from, as not notable enough to have own article, but merging is better than deleting the lot. Doh5678 Talk 18:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree fully with KickingEdgarAllenPoe. This, btw, is why mass nominations should be avoided if possible. Some should be kept, and some should be merged/redirected. Until they are separated, my keep vote will have to stand for the lot. The Steve 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not understand why the "merge" comments. How useful is:

"White Elephant" is the first single from the album Gravity the Seducer by the electronic music band Ladytron.[1]

Track listing

"White Elephant" – 4:15

References

Reference

to the album? This is WP:UNDUE. Most articles are based on: "Song is a single from the Album by band Ladytron.^[1] Then a tracklisting including the CD single release and its remixes (if it had)", and that's all.

^ Reliable source/Discogs (unreliable source)

Keeping unnotable crap that fails a policy and a guideline won't help in anything to this project. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between merge and delete is a fairly minor one (in this case), but the main reason to merge is that the article is NOT deleted but redirected, and so will never get recreated. This should actually *reduce* the stuff that gets sent to AFD. If someone actually finds enough information and citations to break one of these songs from the album, great! But normally there's enough room on the album page. The redirect also aids search results. If you want to know about that particular song, a search of the song title only will get you quickly to the album page. Cheers, The Steve 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the correct word is redirect. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A merge is normally added because if there is any relevant info not in the main article, it should be added. However, it is up to those editing the main article, so we voters don't even have to look at the article to be redirected (but we probably should). For instance, some (but not all) of those Ladytron singles charted, and that info should be kept. The Steve 08:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge The current requirements for the notability of individual songs are much lower than any other aspect of Wikipedia, but fortunately that something meets the notabity requirements is no reason to necessarily have an article if there is insufficient specific to say. and the default should be, like for other creative works, merging unless there is actual critical commentary. I see none in the articles. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to album as long as content is not deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is plenty of room on the albums for the songs. AIRcorn (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect both Spaced Out Cat and Hi, Robot to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes per WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced Out Cat

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

I've tried redirecting this to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes several times (per this discussion), as it's an unremarkable episode (unnotable on its own, fails WP:GNG) of an animated series, but another editor constantly restores it. Deletion requested. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Omkar1234 has now started edit-warring on another episode article that was also part of the previous discussion establishing the redirects, I've added it to the discussion as well:

Hi, Robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redirect as suggested. The individual article is clearly not notable, and the redirect seems a helpful one ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. We need to replace that page with a semi-protected redirect.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep every short. We can put very much information. We can make a template of the episodes like the Tom and Jerry Cartoons. Even if you could put a semiprotected redirect, it's good to know that I'm an autoconfirmed user. The one who was restoring it. Omkar1234 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but why should we? This episode (and in fact, all of them) fails the general notability guideline - which is why the previous discussion ~~(which you've ignored the directives of)~~ redirected them all to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes. You've failed to provide even one reason why this episode notable on its own. Also, your status as autoconfirmed or not does not matter to this discussion, as it has no bearing at all on the article itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I had not been registered during the request of deletion of list of Tom and Jerry Tales Episodes Omkar1234 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant to the discussion about the lack of individual notability of these episodes how, exactly? MikeWazowski (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see a reason to revise the previous AfD result in this case, the article does not have much more content then what is provided in the list. If it could be established that this episode had some special significance such that it warranted an independent article it would be another matter, but this appears to be nothing more then a plot summary, which again, the list does a fine job of. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I had restoring it because I could not see the information for the cartoons. Omkar 1234 ^{Space ShuttleOmkar1234!} 15:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote struck through - you don't get to vote on this multiple times, Omkar1234 - and you've still failed to address the critical issue of (or more specifically, the lack of) notability for these individual episodes. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there is nothing in the article that in any way justifies its seperate existence. It is a classic example of an article that fails the guidelines for making an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Truck Destruction

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

I can find no indication at reliable sites which are independent that this unreleased game meets the general notability guidelines or the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#What is appropriate?, which states (amongst other things) Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry - as well as giving alternative places where such an article might be more appropriate than on Wikipedia. All the coverage I could find was at social sites or forums. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:CRYSTAL plus a whole raft of other policies. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable independent sources. See WP:GNG. Guoguo12 (Talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, unsourced, non-notable. Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Male Lead Singers

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

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American male singers lists them all. A split into lead and non-lead singers is superfluous as chorus singers usually don't meet the criterias for WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have only been seven American male lead singers? Who knew? Seriously, this is such a vague concept for a list that it can never hope to be even close to complete and would be about 10000KB in size if it was. Delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmanageable, and simply far, far too broad of a subject to make a viable list. This is what categories are for. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this really necessary? Discussion is already taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American female lead singers and might be better discussed there. If this is agreed, this debate should be procedurally closed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this is slightly more focused than some of the other lists created by this editor, it remains vast and sprawling in scope and would require a great deal of maintenance. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American female solo singers

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

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American female singers lists them all. A split into solo and non-solo singers is superfluous as chorus singers usually don't meet the criterias for WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmanageable, and simply far, far too broad of a subject to make a viable list. This is what categories are for. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this really necessary? Discussion is already taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American female lead singers and might be better discussed there. If this is agreed, this debate should be procedurally closed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this is slightly more focused than some of the other lists created by this editor, it remains vast and sprawling in scope and would require a great deal of maintenance. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American female lead singers

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

One of several lists generated by a single editor. A PROD was contested without giving a reason. Concern is: Redundant list, Category:American female singers lists them all. A split into lead and non-lead singers is superfluous as background singers usually don't meet the criterias for wp:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all redundant lists, better served by a category:

DocPath

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

Delete. No indication of significance or importance. Notability has not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Unable to locate sources to support content. Cind.amuse 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage that I can see ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 14:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syncope (software)

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

Notability has not been established under the software criteria. PROD was removed without explanation. It would be great if this AfD did result in notability being proven but it is not my area of expertise. Sitush (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is by a new editor and is being actively improved with assistance; it may be too early to draw a firm conclusion on keep/delete and personally I'm going to see what this article is like in a few days before !voting. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator has now explained that it is a new product, little coverage will exist. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable sources discussing the subject in significant depth ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as premature at the very least. Google News, Books, and Scholar have never heard of it. Odd original research and essayish passages in the text:

All that with a (very noticeable) exception: IdM. Nothing seemed to be found throughout the all Internet that was implementing what needed to fulfil customers' requirements.

At that point it became clear that the only way out was to respond to one of mostly heard sentences in modern IT: "Do you pine for the days when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?"

So, at the end, why Open Source? Because it's better!

Since this was released this month, I'm not sure this has had time to be genuinely notable. It does not get a pass just by being open source software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LanX

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

Delete. Notability is not met for this organization in accordance with the general notability guidelines. No indication of importance outside of being a finalist in a grant making foundation's contest. None of the sources present the organization in any significant manner. Four sources are not independent, while the NYT article only mentions the organization when sourcing a quote. An individual was responding to the issue of small businesses needing funding and the commentary stated that he was an F&M professor that recently completed a feasibility study for LanX. CSD was removed, but I have no idea what significance or importance the editor considered. The article was written as a promotional effort by a representative of the organization, as indicated on the talk page. When all is said and done, the article doesn't offer us anything other than existence, while the sources lack independence or indication of significant coverage to support notability. Cind.amuse 09:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one passing reference from a web site unconnected with the subject's home page, a passing reference in a paragraph-- not substantial coverage. To quote that page, " there are hundreds of thousands of like-minded social innovators pursuing new ways to solve enduring challenges." And this is cited as an example of one of those many. Concur with Cindamuse's analysis and conclusions above. Willing to keep an open mind should new information surface. (There are other LanX's out there. This one goes by the name Lancaster Stock Exchange.)

Breakdown of references on page at the time of this writing:

ref 1-- irrelevant

ref 2 supports sentence, but is not substantial enough to establish notability

ref 3 is part of subject's home page

ref 4supports sentence. Does not mention subject

ref 5 is a proflie page written by someone connected to the subject. Dloh cierekim 13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Several editors in the discussion suggested salt, noting threats of recreation and a history of past recreations. Salt will therefore be applied. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taylor (composer)

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

This article has apparently been deleted for non-notability three times before, the last time was a speedy deletion, and non-notability is the reason I'm nominating it again. As mentioned on its discussion page, the only significant citations are either unverifiable or do not actually reference the subject, and, further, there is a suggestion that there is an intentional attempt here to deceive or at least to mislead editors. The article appears to be essentially the work of one editor, other editors either serving to check claims or else attending to matters of form rather than of substance (how the article says what it says, rather than what it says). TheScotch (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing turns up; many dubious claims, especially "one of the most performed living Canadian composers". Stinks of autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A flagrant example not only of self-promotion but of deceptive editorial practices.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See references before making skeptical claims and deleting citations. Buy the books. The information is there. See my previous note on the other page for details about references, and mysteriously deleted citations (Jerome Kohl? The Scotch? You two seem heavily involved in an attempt to delete this article)—Music 416 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Music 416" is the "one editor" I spoke of above who has essentially written the article single-handedly. I have deleted no citations from the article (nor have I edited the article in any way, other than nominating it for deletion,--I've merely commented on its discussion page), and obviously Wikipedia keeps a history of editing anyone can view, so all deletions can be attributed to a Wikipedia moniker or an IP address. Nothing is "mysteriously deleted". I checked the references as well as I could without actually buying the books, which I'm not going to do, and which I think it would be unreasonable of "Music 416" to expect or to require any editor to do. My conclusion is that this "Justin Taylor" is not notable. Of course, I'm "heavily involved in an attempt to delete the article": I'm the one who nominated it for deletion, which is as plain as day to anyone who comes here. (For the record, I was not at all involved in any way in any of the previous three article deletion processes.)TheScotch (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; self-promotion, probably an autobiography, but most importantly, verifiable references of sufficient reliability are lacking. See excellent analysis by TheScotch on the article's talk page referenced in his rationale. Sorry, self-promotion on Wikipedia tends to end this way -- it's nothing personal. We have to restrict our entries to people notable enough that they are covered by multiple, non-trivial sources, and written people other than the subject. Antandrus (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion? Do some research on the subject before you assume things. I doubt Justin Taylor has time to sit here and write articles about himself. See my note on the talk page about specifics. Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Many sources have already been demonstrated. See talk page. The other sources have been unverified by Jerome Kohl, Hairhorn and The Scotch before making these claims. They are only going on their own personal knowledge, hardly useful when compiling an on-line encyclopedia. Music416 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to scan the relevant pages of the books involved and post them where they can be seen. My own "personal knowledge" tells me that many of the claims here are inflated or outright fantasy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you signed your name mysterious one. Music416 (talk

Left an extra tilde by mistake, nothing mysterious. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that I was involved early on in the article, and first raised the issue of reliable sourcing on the talk page. I am discounting Techniques and materials of music as a reliable source as nobody seems to be able to verify this source. The only thing that remotely comes close is the InsideHalton article. InsideHalton is the website for a group of community newspapers. As such this represents a reliable source, but is strictly local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!! I can scan in the two concert programs if that's helpful. The reference books are at my library, so I unfortunately don't have them at the moment. I used them when specifically looking for information on this composer along with the Gullion book. There is more information out there i'm sure, but unfortunately no one can contribute it because know-it-all editors keep deleting this article before even checking sources. If deleted, this article will return again and again, because the information is there and Taylor is important and notable enough.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "InsideHalton is the website for a group of community newspapers. As such this represents a reliable source, but is strictly local coverage".

The notice itself is unattributed (no reporter, no byline) and reads very much as if it were written and placed by the subject. TheScotch (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!!"

Yep, "right there" next to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in "a book designed to teach children the basics of some of the world's greatest composers of classical music". Even if Justin Taylor were notable, he would have to be of fairly minor reputation to escape the notice of all the editors here with graduate degrees in music, which would still make the leap from Bach to Justin Taylor quite remarkable. As of Sunday night, however, Lulu vanity publishing was clearly attributing authorship of the "Gullion" book to one "Justin Taylor". There is a precedent, by the way, for Justin Taylor apparently self-publishing books (and not just scores). He also has a short, glib, ungrammatical bio of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach at Amazon (which lets you read its introduction, hence my assessment). TheScotch (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy The Scotch. You have no proof! What are your motives here? To prove you can delete an article? Quit making up stories and get a life. The paper article is real, the Gullion book is real, the concert programmes are real and the reference books are real. The only things that aren't real are your claims against the subject of this article, who none of us know personally by the way. Your assesments are just that-yours. In my opinion, your assesments mean nothing. They're garbage. As a fan of Justin Taylor, I believe he is a breath of fresh air in the modern world of classical music. Your attitude proves my assesment. Open up your damn ears and eyes and quit ignoring the facts.

The fact that Taylor publishes his own music discounts him from being in Wikipedia? I guess that gets rid of 99.9% of rock musicians. In the end you can twist and turn the facts all you like. Like I mentioned before I am willing to upload scans of the concert programmes if they will help keep this article from not being deleted. Also mentioned before but ignored by you, is the fact that Lulu sells all kinds of books including major publishers, so your argument with that has no validity. I guess Justin Taylor hasn't escaped your notice now huh? Maybe Gullion knows Taylor? Maybe he's an advocate of his music and wanted to give him a break? Modern music is rarely mentioned in any classical books, so one should be happy people are continuing to cover it. There could be a million different reasons...

Whpq would know about the paper as I believe he lives around the area.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As stated above, the InsideHalton web site is the online publishing site for a group of Halton community newspapers, and is not a user submitted content site. However, the coverage is insubstantial, and the coverage is very local in nature so contributes very little towards establishing notability. As for the other sources, I call shenanigans. Let's consider Techniques and Materials of Music: From the Common Practice Period Through the Twentieth Century. The 2007 edition is cited in the article to page 348, but the book only has 320 pages. Amazon Amazon has the book available for searching, and there is no "Justin Taylor" in the book. You can do ths search yourself. An introduction to...Great Composers by Ronald Gullion is likely a Lulu book although it names Patch as the publisher. Gone from Lulu, but the google cache still shows it. The author's spotlight leads to infoatjustintaylordotca, the lulu storefront for Justin Taylor. The Complete Idiot's Guide Music Dictionary is cited to page 324. I physically held a copy of the book in my hand and was unable to access page 324 because the last page is 321. In other words, some of the sources have been deliberately misstated to give the appearance of a well sourced article. -- Whpq (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq a couple things. Techniques and Materials I already discussed with you last year. We came to the conclusion that the page count was wrong on one of the websites.

Taylor's storefront could be stocking the Gullion book (although it doesnt appear to be in stock anymore-google cached) since he is named in the book. Like you mentioned the publisher is Patch, not a publisher Taylor has previously been associated with. Nobody knows for certain unless someone gets ahold of Taylor or Gullion himself and gets the inside story.

As far as the complete idiot's guide music dictionary, you sure you have the right edition? There are a couple different books by that name from different authors. I held the book in my hand last year and page 324 was very much there.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two busybody librarians contributing to OCLC WorldCat also held the book in their hands last year (2010), and counted exactly 321 pages. The ISBN-13 of their book was 9781592579976 (pbk) and 9781615649976 (cloth). What is the ISBN of your copy? It appears, however, to be copyright 2010 instead of 2009, as cited in the article. In fact, if you believe WorldCat, there is no 2009 edition of a book of this exact title by Stanford Felix, or by any other author.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Music416 still wants to keep up his charade of sources. As Jerome Kohl points out, there is no 2009 edition of the book, unless you believe it is missing out the Worldcat catalog, and Google Books missed indexing it, and Amazon.com who will sell anything with an ISBN has chosen to ignore it. I usually assume good faith, but in this case -- bullshit! -- Whpq (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, you're right; the page count was wrong on one of the sites. Amazon has corrected it from the misstated 400 to 320. -- Whpq (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The researches of TheScotch, Whpq and Jerome Kohl, as laid out on this page and on Talk:Justin Taylor (composer), seem to indicate that this is a case of over-enthusiastic self-promotion using fabricated and misleading references. The "Inside Halton" reference is the closest thing we have to a reliable source, but one local source is not enough to signify notability for our purposes. Given that this article has been deleted three times previously on notability grounds, I would suggest that a WP:SALT may be in order. --Deskford (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, that is your opinion yet again. I held the book in my hands last year, so I definately know how many pages were in it and if it exists. As regards to the self-promotion comments, I am not the subject nor affiliated with the subject, so that would not be a fair or accurate assessment in this case, seeing as i did research this article.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Deskford's suggestion that this may be a candidate for SALT, I should call attention to Music416's threat, "Someone else will just repost this article if deleted", found on the article's talk page here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He also threatens above (on this AfD page), "If deleted, this article will return again and again." TheScotch (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I am unable to find any reliable sources that convince me that this is anything other than a vanity page for a non-notable composer. WP:N is not met. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to make a suggestion. Rather than complete delete this entry, which is valid as a person, but perhaps some of the verbiage is in dispute, could we keep this entry but add to it by making it generic about the name. Instead list all the Justin Taylor's, such as the author and this composer and people like myself. My name just happens to be Justin Taylor (http://justintaylor.tel). This is just a thought on how it could be modified and made usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakingbadger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing what is called a "disambiguation page" and, as a concept, this is certainly not controversial. The question of keeping or deleting an article on grounds of notability (I think this must be what you mean by "valid as a person") is a separate issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is a navigation aid to distinguish articles that share a name. The key point here is that it is a navigation aid, and not a content page. Either Justin Taylor the composer is notable, in which case he would have an article, or he is not notable, and he would not have a page to navigate to, and therefore would not appear as an entry on the disambiguation page. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, actually, that there is already a Wikipedia article about a fictional television character called "Justin Taylor". I haven't read that article and have no opinion about it, but if we assume for the sake of argument that this fictional character is notable, then it may be wise in certain contexts for you to differentiate yourself with your middle name, as I see you've done in your e-mail account (or whatever this is). I don't know if television writers generally bother to give their characters middle names except in special cases (well, there's "Maynard G. Krebs", where the G. stands for Walter). Running into real persons who share one's characters's names must be a hazard of the profession. TheScotch (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The subject comprehensively fails the criteria at WP:COMPOSER. His scores and recordings are self-published and not held in a single library. The Guillem book is described as "a short book aimed at children introducing the great composers of classical music" and appears to exist (or have existed) solely at the subject's lulu.com store and is likewise not held in a single library. In fact, nothing by an author of that name is held in any library. The InsideHalton article was written from Taylor's own press release, and says so. The remainder of the references also appear to be spurious. If the Brampton Symphony Orchestra had indeed given the Canadian premiere of Taylor's Prelude No. 2 (as he claims on his website), it seems to have gone entirely unnoticed by the rest of the world, including Brampton. There is no evidence that Helene Grimaud (?!) or Alun Francis (?!) have ever performed his work. Nor is there any evidence that his work has ever been performed at the Beethovenfest (?!). Were these names just pulled out of a hat? Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S M Gothoskar

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

Notability not established. PROD removed without any attempt to resolve this issue. Sitush (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 09:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE There is a clear reference given on the site from a reputed Indian Newspaper as per the norms... so why should we Delete User: Bhargo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, what is the URL of the page? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one source, cited twice. It is in a Indian language newspaper here. No translation, so WP:NOENG might kick in, but in any event a single source does not mean a lot. This person has been active for > 50 years according to the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- The article despite having one ref is very trivial and doesn't explain much other than his profession. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Live 1

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

Non-notable event for a small mixed martial arts promotion/management company. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable MMA event. Only sources are announcements on a website and in the local paper saying an MMA event is coming. Routine sports coverage is not notable. The most notable thing about the card was the fact that most of the fighters mentioned as highlighting the card didn't actually compete. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I disagree with deletion of this articleas it was a major MMA event for Ontario & the company could become a bigger one, if it gets deleted and then it's one of the top of the world then you deleted an article that was the first event for a company, just my thoughts. c.m1994 ( I'm lonely can you talk to me if your famous ;)) 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a big assumption--that the company will grow to be one of the biggest in the world. You might want to look at WP:CRYSTAL. Papaursa (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event by a non-notable organization composed of almost entirly non-notable fighters. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supported claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete There is no point in deleting this article, it was the first event ever. Obviously it's not a huge promotion, but that's not grounds for deletion. Has a few big name fighters on the card. Every promotion has to start somewhere. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
- This promotion doesn't even have its own page though . I don't see how this is anything other than routine sports coverage. If the org had its own page, and this article was merged into that one, I don't suspect we would be having this discussion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the promoter nor the event is notable. Merely creating a page for the promotion wouldn't make this event, or the other two that are scheduled, notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of notability for this event. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFC 1

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

Non-notable event for a small, regional mixed martial arts promotion that featured UFC cast-offs as top billing. It is currently the only event held by this promotion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and the only coverage simply gives the results. Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article for what appears to be a non-notable event for an organization that has no Wikipedia article. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable MMA event sponsored by a non-notable organization. Astudent0 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by DGG. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next What's In

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like an advert, refs unreliable and don't denote notability. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Chat like comments. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling like you do not fit in

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

Wikipedia is not an advice column. WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTESSAY....need I go on?? CTJF83 07:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. Sad that such deletion requests have to be discussed. --Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I agree. CTJF83 08:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3, chat-like comments? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just pointed out "chat like comments" was part of A3, after this AfD :) CTJF83 08:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. , with leave to renomiate after the event has actually occurred if no coverage arises. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Capitol Punishment

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

As the previous AfD, I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. Following previous AfD, it was redirected [6]. After some discussion with the closer User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011.05#WWE_Capitol_Punishment it was re-created, apparently because these two sources were enough to satisfy King of Hearts: [7] [8]. The first of those is some trivial coverage about a short advert for the event; the second is a transcript of the show during which the advert was shown. It's all advertising; there is simply no significant coverage, outside of that generated by the WWE who organize it - and it is unlikely there will be such coverage until the event occurs. The phrase currently included, that NBC Sports [..] cited this Wikipedia entry for the background of the event just shows; we're making this notable; it isn't notable yet. Chzz ► 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strikes as a over-zealous deletionist arguement for an event that will take place in less than 3 weeks time! If it doesn't happen, ironically it'll be even more noteworthy. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in what way does it meet notability guidelines now? Chzz ► 08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive found many sources that could be added that make this notable--SteamIron 09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great (if they're reliable sources) - will you be adding them to the article, or telling us what they are? Chzz ► 09:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources, as per nom. Those who are supporting keeping this article need, per WP:BURDEN to provide sources to back up this content. As far as I can see, there are none. Anthem 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't surprise me that an overzealous deletionist like you would honestly bring up another Nomination for deletion AGAIN even though WWE's been talking about this for like the last two weeks. There's a great thing called Google and it lists many sites covering this so yeah it's pretty significant Chzz.Voices in my Head WWE 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a couple of things going on in my thinking, but the main one is that by the time this discussion closes, the event will be only 9 days in the future. Even if you think that this won't be notable until it happens (debatable), what's the point of removing information from WP for 9 days? Redirecting this to List of WWE pay per view events will accomplish almost nothing. It will without question be notable after June 19, so unless you want to open the larger question of whether articles on individual wrestling PPV events should be deleted, this should be an autokeep. More broadly, there should be some compromise reached on how far in the future it's appropriate to create these articles. But this one's already been created, and keeping it does zero harm. Meelar (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A match has just been announced by WWE this conversation is over.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously if those sources are mentioning it regardless of how it is (Even if it is advert), its them mentioning it and thus giving the event credibility. This would be like deleting every WWE or TNA ppv event just because the NY Times doesn't have an article on it. Thats the thing, these events never receive these type of attention unless its like WrestleMania. This problem has never come up until now, just because of the show being related to the US capital. #smh--Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy currently it does not satisfy my interpretation of the general notability guidelines, but the article is well enough written to bring back to mainspace if/when the event receives significant third party coverage. I removed the statement about NBC quoting this article, it is something of a circular reference.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kumioko (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - These discussions about deleting articles on WWE PPVs which are only 2 weeks away are flat-out ridiculous. I think no-one argues about deleting articles which refer to events one or two months away, but some users have made this into their personal vendetta. Arguments provided by the likes of Chzz give a lifely testament to this and only confirm the assumption that Wiki is misused in large parts for self-promotion. Behind the shield of source credibility/reliability, they would not change their minds for anything in the world. Anyway, asking for other sources on wrestling PPVs outside the wrestling community (since sources like WWE, ticketmaster or host arena websites are said to be nonreliable) is to produce an almost conspiracy-like rationale behind the argument. If only sources like NY Times, LA Times, CNN or BBC were to be considered reliable, then half of the articles on, say, NBA, NFL, NHL wouldn't be reliable either. Long story short: I think there are enough reliable sources to safely predict that the PPV will indeed take place and, hence, the entry should be kept. Blocpark (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that the WWE website, ticketmaster, or the area website are unreliable, I am sure they are entirely correct. Nobody is saying the event will not take place. Mere existence is not grounds for an article. For example, I exist, and there is no article about me. The issue is they are not independent of the PPV, which is the foundation of the general notability guidelines. From WP:GNG 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. Significant coverage, yes, reliable, yes, independent, no.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how ticketmaster.com (which has absolutely NO affiliation with WWE or any sport in any shape or form) isn't considered a reliable source? WWE.com I get, VerizonCenter.com I sort of get, but how is Ticketmaster.com NOT considered reliable?--Voices in my Head WWE 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I said ticketmaster was not independent of the PPV. From WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. I assume ticketmaster is selling tickets to the event, thus they are affiliated, and not independent of the event.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pretty much over. The KEEP(s) outnumber the Delete(s) by one-thirds. And one of the dissents is an editor who many of us are certain has a personal vendetta to delete all wrestling related articles on Wikipedia.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second this assumption/perception. (Hmm, I wonder whether all of the NASCAR articles are actually notable.) Blocpark (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind editors that this is not a vote, and suggest reading WP:DISCUSSAFD. It would be helpful if anyone saying "keep" could produce evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source", in accord with WP:N, instead of just saying I like it. Chzz ► 16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying, basically, is: "I remind self-promoting editors that they have always been acting like dictators and are expected to maintain this attitude." Also, your call for independent sources perfectly matches my earlier assessment that source credibility is often used as false pretenses for denying any wrestling-related articles a right to exist, since even reliable non-primary sources are regularly shot down. Hey, I suggest a new group on Wiki: "Association of Wikipedians Who Like Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Articles, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particular Articles, and That Does Indeed Mean They Are Deletionists". Blocpark (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.....Oh snap....^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comments pertaining to this article, rather than me? Chzz ► 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A match has been announced and we've got moflippin third party source for it. This discussion is over you overzealous deletionist.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CIVIL. Discuss the article and its notability. Discussions of nominators or other editors will not be tolerated. This includes using the term deletionist. Further, this is a discussion, not a vote, the actual arguements and opinions put forward by Keeps and Deletes are more important than the quantity of Keeps and Deletes. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Seems to be the best of all worlds at the moment. Article will likely gain notability once the event has happened, therefore to prevent the loss of all the hard work that has already been put into the article, it is best to save it off of mainspace for now. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree with The 359. Chzz is way out line as usual in another attempt to be Mr. Powerful and delete articles for the hell of it. All WWE PPV's are included on wiki, they'll continue to be included on wiki, and every last WWE produced PPV is on here. Therefore, all future PPV's one day, one way or another will be on here no matter how much you argue previous to the event. Like Over The Limit, all of you who tried to remove it that lost, I laugh at you. And after this event happens and it's on wiki with all the other PPV's I'll laugh. Chzz is being a control freak with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of other WWE PPV articles does not automatically make this article notable. Nor does it necessarily mean that those past articles are notable either. And once again, this is not a vote nor is this about "one-uping" others based on the results of an AFD. If you wish to have your opinions valued in an AFD discussion, I suggest not making them while hiding behind an anonymous IP to slander another user. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with Userfy. However, I like to think that notability lies in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what is not notable to one, may be perfectly notable to the other. For instance, I don't know anything about NASCAR, hence articles on the matter are not at all notable to me. But still I wouldn't nominate articles on NASCAR for deletion, for I can imagine that they are quite notable to others more involved in the subject matter. I think it is about time that this tolerance may be allowed to supporters of professional wrestling, too. Some editors clearly do not have this tolerance. 'Ein jeder ist für Toleranz, nur wenn's drauf ankommt nicht so ganz!' Blocpark (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While notability may lie in the eyes of the beholder in the real world, Wikipedia is not the real world. On Wikipedia, a notable subject is something that has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the instruction. But that is exactly the point I am trying to make: even sources which are non-primary and reliable are regularly dismissed as non-reliable and/or affiliated. Against such a backdrop, of course, no reasonable evaluation of sources at hand can be possible. Blocpark (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll accept that WWE - the channel - has a vested interest in promoting the event; thus, their website cannot be used to establish notability.

Ticketmaster makes money selling tickets for the event. Thus, they also have a vested interest, and are not independent of the subject (the event).

Ditto the arena.

Ditto iTunes.

The article has two references which are independent; "Wrestling News" [9] and "NBC Sports" [10].

The piece in "Wrestling News" is very short, and all it tells us about the event is that the event exists, and that a person called "Truth" might or might not appear in it.

The "NBC Sports" link is about the poster. All it tells us about the event is, that it's planned for June 19 at the Verizon Center.

That's it. That is all the facts we've been able to gather. Thus, we do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" - and each of the terms in that phrase are clearly defined in WP:GNG.

It doesn't matter whether the article is about a wrestling event, or a person, or a company, or a museum, or a computer game, or a website...etc. It is nothing to do with anyone's opinion as to whether something is, or is not, "notable" to them - it's a question of trying to give the readers good information about the topic. We can't find enough reliably-sourced information to support this article at this time. Chzz ► 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not this shit again. They promoted the hell out of this last night on RAW and are already building the card. This is setting an annoying precedent. We went through this exact same shit with WWE Over the Limit (2011), which was moved to the article incubator, and subsequently moved back to the articlespace after it was declared absurd and pointless to incubate it in the first place. ("WP:OTHERSTUFF HERP DERP" No. This is the same BS that is going to go in the same pointless cycle.) You're wasting all of our time yet again with this. You may be willing to type 20 paragraphs every month to try and delete every wrestling PPV ever made for God knows whatever reason, but there are better things we all need to be doing. This is a complete waste of resources and a complete annoyance. No references you deem suitable? WP:SOFIXIT and stop having these absurdly long AFDs that are rendered completely moot and pointless days after closure, or in this case, pointless YESTERDAY. This is the third one I've seen, and there's likely more. I've wasted ten minutes on this and others a lot more, and I'm going to have hardasses spewing WP:CIVIL my way in-between their passive aggressive condescending nonsense. Fuck everything about this AFD and all the other now utterly moot AFDs. No vote, since it really won't matter. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU Agent Vodello. I'm gonna say this right now (and forgive me for my language) but if you have such a DAMN problem with every article Chzz why don't you fix it for a change? You don't seem to have a life if you can put up every one of these articles up for deletion. Talkers Talk people I don't spend all my time like you on talk pages I'm always on articles creating them only to see people who don't know the difference between the edit button and CSD take them down. You know what's wrong with the article Chzz? SOFIXIT!!! again sorry for the language and Chzz you don't need to leave me another WP:CIVIL message on my talk page.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use caps and bold to try and make your point; and please do not claim that I don't "have a life" - that's not very nice.

If I could find reliable sources, I would fix it. I cannot. Chzz ► 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing how this meets the WP:GNG, as Chzz points out above. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT!!! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Have y'all forgotten that? That's what this whole website was made for. That's what the CORE CONCEPT is!--Voices in my Head WWE 01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not forgotten that, but you can't add reliable sources that don't exist. Wikipedia was founded on several other core policies, which you may wish to read. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to 'fix it' [11] - that didn't work [12]. Another tried [13] and you, Nascarking, reverted [14]. Twice [15] [16]. So I tried to 'sofixit' through AfD - and did [17]. Again, it reappeared, without meeting requirements [18]. The basic point remains; WP:V. At risk of repeating myself: Where's the "significant coverage"? Chzz ► 01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything with the article because some editors started an edit war over the one Wrestling News Source. I'm sitting on the sideline after the page is unlocked. I'm tired of doing the work and having FOX News over here tell me this page doesn't have any reliable sources. I've been looking at the history tab and I haven't seen you guys doing any work to make it better. Especially you Chzz, all I've seen you do is put things up for deletion. You could at least go to Google and help us with this instead of telling us it doesn't have enough sources every single effin day. WE KNOW ALREADY--Voices in my Head WWE 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so - you understand that there are no independent reliable sources? Or at least, not enough to show notability? I've looked for them too - and I cannot find any. If you've found some though - just mention them here. I'm sure an admin will be quite happy to add them for us. Chzz ► 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources do not necessarily have to be added to the article to change the position of participants at an AfD. I would gladly change my position if I were shown significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, either here, or on the article talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sports --Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, the phrase, "which you can see live and exclusive on Sky Box Office" leads me to think that Sky is not independent - ie, they also have a vested interest in promoting the event. But at least we're heading in the right direction. Anything else? Chzz ► 02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its difficult to find independent sources that are reliable since the ones that have news about wrestling are considered "dirt sheet" websites. IDK how much this FUSE.tv link helps--Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it helps much; I'm sorry. And I do sympathize re. the lack of reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is an Encyc, and as such, we want to add info that is verifiable. If it's not reported in reliable sources, then it's not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopaedia. And by "reliable sources", I mean, something with a "reputation for fact-checking" and "editorial control" (WP:RS). If we could present information supported by good sources, I'd be very happy to keep the article. But - honestly? Right now, I don't think we can. So, it's perhaps suitable for other websites (right now), but not an encyclopaedia. Chzz ► 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But under that basis, that would mean every PPV article that is on Wikipedia must go through AfD. Including those maybe even that are GA's and FA's. --Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want! This discussion is nothing more than a huge waste of time. Some editors wouldn't change their minds for anything in the world. They HATE professional wrestling and bathe in self-righteousness - and that is all that matters to them. Here I stand, I will not move seems to be their motto. If they applied the same meticulous scrutiny to articles/topics they like, they would have to delete many of them too. Ah whatever, this discussion is in vain anyway, let them self-promote... Blocpark (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just end this discussion for the next 2 hours until the page is unlocked again. Unless anyone here is an admin we can't do anything so deleting it while the page was Locked for 3 Wikipedia days would be WTF. If anything let's pick this conversation back up in 3 Wikipedia days days since we lost editing time on the article because it was locked.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be "WTF"? It's not like we are coming up with a bunch of sources in the AFD... —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was my stupid Auto Correct I meant to Put What The Hell but shortened. As in if you're really gonna delete the article even though it's been locked for three days then what the hell.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a better third party source than the one on the article for the match already [19] and for one yet to be announced that will be announced Friday on SmackDown [20].--Voices in my Head WWE 03:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can't be used as a source.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? That's it I'm using WWE.com for sourcing this is too difficult.--Voices in my Head WWE 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the blog doesn't work as a RS. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used a blog for one, and WWE.com for the other, I removed the blog, and left WWE.com.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the out come of this afd is userfy then userfy it here--SteamIron 06:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time It's very clear to everyone that an article will be created and referenced with enough reliable sources for inclusion for this pay-per-view when it occurs on June 19, 2011 or possibly sooner. It's a waste of time and effort you could be spending on improving the encyclopedia instead of grasping at straws and linking to policies to try and delete an article that will be more than likely be improved on in less than two weeks and will be a article worth keeping. This is stupid. — Moe ε 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Erm, the PPV is only two weeks away, why would it be deleted?, OTher PPV articles are usually up WAY before the PPV and the Wrestlemania 28 article is up and that is like 10 months away.Muur (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the reason for deletion is there is not enough coverage in reliable sources right now. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a weak excuse when the article will be notable enough, when there is already an existing article with significant content on it and when the article will certainly not be deletion worthy in two weeks time. It's pointless to point to these faux arguments that it should be deleted when, with 100% surety, it be brought back in due time. — Moe ε 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that perhaps WP:PW's "event" article process needs to be refined, I currently have yet to view a thoroughly convincing argument in favor of the deletion of this article.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Delete The arguments of many of the keep votes have been to attack the nominator and defend wrestling instead of addressing the concerns of the articles. The breakdown of the sources is like so, note I stopped after the first 'No' for each row:

Source	Independent of the subject?	Significant about the subject	Reliable Source?
1	No
2	No
3	No
4	No
5	No
6	Yes	No
7	No
8	Yes	Not exactly, more about the poster and contains Wikipedia source
9	No
10	No
11	Yes	No
12	No

The fact of the matter is that this fails to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps if wrestling articles have trouble meeting existing notability guidelines, we need to find a community consensus to include wrestling in WP:Athlete with broader definitions of what wrestling events and what additional criteria can be used to determine the notability of the events. Each event cannot be independently notable. There must be some sort of clarification that the community can use to judge. As far as this article goes, all we have is WP:GNG which it fails to meet. I suggest userfy because chances are this event may become notable after it happens and there is decent content here that should not be lost.--v/r - T P 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - KEEP*****I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PERSONAL VENDETTA THAT PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST WWE OR WIKI TO DELETE THIS 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE PPV. PLEASE GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP.— Useucitizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I initially would have voted for "keep", but I think TP raises a VERY important issue—the bulk of wrestling articles, especially articles on PPVs, have great difficulty meeting existing notability guidelines. The main reason, as I see it, is that pro wrestling (at least in the U.S.) generally falls in a media black hole between sports and entertainment. I suspect the same applies in countries where pro wrestling has been heavily influenced by the U.S. version. Sports media generally ignore pro wrestling as scripted entertainment, while pro wrestling is drowned out in the entertainment media by film, other non-sports television, music, live theater, et al. This creates a situation where almost all sources that could potentially be used to establish notability are at least peripherally involved in promoting the event. The independent sources that do exist, as one previous commenter stated, are typically denigrated in the industry as "dirtsheets". (Interestingly, it would probably be much easier for Japanese wrestling articles to meet GNG—apparently, Japanese media treat puroresu as if it were a legitimate combat sport, despite it being every bit as scripted as the North American version.) Note, however, that no less of a sportswriting icon than Frank Deford has written:
"...wrestling is a sport. No, not legitimate in the competitive sense, but it is certainly legitimate athletic exercise."

I second TP's call for a more comprehensive discussion of notability in the professional wrestling context. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE! Can we please Stay on Topic?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarking (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2011

Absolutely. Topic: I do not think that there is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" about this event. - nobody here had provided the slightest evidence to contradict that quite simple assertion; per WP:GNG, WP:V. Chzz ► 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did two wiki days ago but apparently according to kelpastick Dirtsheets can't be used as sources.Voices in my Head WWE 03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I said blogs can not be used as sources, the source I removed was had a blogspot.com url, which could not be used as a source, and would typically have been removed automatically by XLinkBot anyway. I would not have said anything about dirt sheets, because up until I read Glossary of professional wrestling terms, which was about three minutes ago, I had no idea what a dirt sheet was.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys say I can't use blogs as sources. Half the articles on Wikipedia (non wrestling) use blogs as sources. Examples include 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans, You're Getting Older and many more. And you say I can't use a blog as a source while probably every single other article on this website does.--Voices in my Head WWE 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another article is using a blog as a source does not mean that it is correct to do so, and you are free to fix articles that have improper sourcing.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly you have no clue what a blog is, or what the policy on blogs is. There are two sources that one could possibly confuse as inappropriate blogs:

Autoblog UK which is an automotive news site and passes the criteria as it is not ismply an editorial site or a site which repeats other people's news, and is well established and has a variety of authors. Hell, if you had bothered to even look at the article, you'd see it says it was written by David Hobbs, who certain passes the criteria for a notable news source for a motorsport article. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endurance-Info is also a sports car news site, although more limited in its number of authors, it is still a news site of equivilance to Autosport.com. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The article has been locked yet again for edit waring till next Saturday.--Voices in my Head WWE 21:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources outside the company producing event. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im still a little confused on this subject. As if right now this event is scheduled to be aired in 6/7 days in many different countries and has been advertised repeatedly by WWE shows (RAW/Smackdown) as well as being advertised by many television stations around the world (Example being Sky in the UK). In addition, the event is currently being previewed by many sites centered around wrestling and sports in general. I dont understand why, instead of taking a minute to search for notibility, this is being placed up for deletion, especially given how close the event is currently. Jamesbuc (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several attempts have been made to find suitable sources to establish notability. They come up with nothing. I just checked again. I just attempted again, and there is nothing new.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt the site Bleachers Report count as notability? Im still confused why WWE's actual site doesnt count as notable infomation considering this is the site which premiers most of the infomation surrounding the event. Jamesbuc (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report, based on what I read on its Wikipedia article, can't be used as a reliable source. WWE, while reliable, is not an independant source, and therefore cannot be used for establishing notability.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats certainly where a problem lies here, until the event has actually happened, the amount of 'pre-press' release will be mostly sites reporting what has been given to them by the WWE and even then, most of the infomation is hidden away given that while WWE wrestling is indeed popular, it isnt classed as a national sport. In fact the real meat of the article will be after the event, at which point 'notable' reviews as well as venue ticket sales and PPV sale figures will start appearing. The question is though if the article is worth keeping up until that moment.Jamesbuc (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to remind everyone that we can't do anything with this article because it's locked till Saturday.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you request full protection? Most issues were with IPs, it could have easily gotten by with semi-protection.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usability break

Delete (and not just this article) I've long believed that WP:GNG needs to be made a lot more restrictive, because stuff like this may end up meeting it just due to the vast, immeasurable quantity of printed word on the internet. WP:GNG would be great if it referred just to print sources, or even the web equivalents of print sources, but I've not usually seen it interpreted that way. Anyway. This is sort of like the individual TV episodes for me. I just do not see the lasting encyclopedic significance, not in such a way that all are as a rule considered notable. Survivor Series (1997) is probably notable (although there's a separate article for the reason why). Same for WrestleMania (1985), Over the Edge (1999), I could probably find maybe half a dozen others. These events had real-world significance, not just significance for characters on a television show. Yes, in a way this is a "wrestling isn't covered by the NY Times" argument, because publications like the NY Times would cover the Montreal Screwjob, would cover (at least retroactively) the beginning of a major annual institution, would cover the untimely death of a performer. They would not cover "John Cena's defending the title against R-Truth." And the reason why has precious little to do with anyone's perception of pro wrestling. It's about significant events in the real world. The reason you're not going to find a NY Times article about, I dunno, Backlash (2002) is not because "LOL wrestling!" it's because no one outside of a very vocal yet ultimately relatively small fandom gives a flying rip that Hulk Hogan defended the title against Triple H. The real-world significance of that event? Both men showed up, performed as they were expected, collected their paychecks and went on to the next city. That's not newsworthy, outside of the sort of sources that are dedicated to covering it to the exclusion of other sorts of events. That's not encyclopedically significant. So I would delete just about all of these individual-PPV articles. If there is a pro wrestling wiki to which they could be sent, I think that would be a fantastic idea, because I'm sure for the fandom they are excellent articles. I do not believe that they belong in a general-interest encyclopedia. Going back to the analogy about TV episodes, One for the Road (Cheers) is certainly notable, just as Goodbye, Farewell and Amen or The Puppy Episode. Their notability would not make every episode of any series, or even of those series, automatically notable (though try telling that to WP:LOST). We absolutely can have articles like WrestleMania, Survivor Series, and even the rather unremarkable Cyber Sunday or New Year's Revolution in a general-interest encyclopedia, just as we have articles about the TV series themselves. But the individual editions, unless notable for real-world reasons, are stepping over the line into fan cruft. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying we should delete every wrestling article that's on wikipedia, nice real nice and wikipedia wonders why editors are leaving in a mass exodus.--SteamIron 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you would have gotten that notion. Maybe you should reread my statement. It's a bit far afield of this particular discussion, but I think a discussion a bit far afield of this one should be had. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is saying that we should delete wrestling articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria for stand alone articles as per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the same way we do with articles about any other subject. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think somewhere along the line the wrestling wiki-project got the idea that all pay-per-view shows are automatically notable, and I would seriously question that notion. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And somewhere down the line not that long ago, members of WP:PW just stopped giving a damn about notability and just lowered the project's standards severely. That's what happened.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -We were a very well organized project and oversaw numerous good quality articles over the years. However, somewhere down the line our veteran editors began retiring from editing and users like Nascarking (Voices in my Head WWE) with serious issues began filling in their empty seat. Thus began the slow decline. Nascarking, I'd like to remind you that this entire ordeal wouldn't have gotten as far as it has, if it weren't for your hotheadedness and clear stubbornness. I'd also like to remind the editors who've contributed their thoughts to this discussion that the IPs and single purpose accounts that have unfortunately voiced their opinions, however misdirected, do not represent WP:PW's views on this particular AFD case. To Green-eyed girl, WP:PW believes our wikiproject's guidelines completely adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and we will continue to evolve and grow in order to maintain that conformity. The creation of stand-alone pages for each individual Pay-per-view (PPV) event began around 2007 with December to Dismember (2006). Before that, we would simply group the yearly results under a particular event chronology on a main page. For example, the Royal Rumble page originally consisted of brief summaries of each year's Royal Rumble event and listed that event's results. As you can see now the Royal Rumble article is a Featured Article and some of the now stand-alone Royal Rumble pages such as Royal Rumble (2007) are listed under Good Article status. We were simply following a retired user's model that was introduced beginning with the December to Dismember series. The fact is our articles are very well written and we strive for excellence - as corny as that may sound... I will agree with Green-eyed girl's main point, in that there are too many article across all genres that fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A simple look at the list of the UFC events with stand-alone articles, I think, greatly supports Green-eyed girl's argument. Early articles such as UFC 10 all the way to the forthcoming UFC 135, UFC 136, UFC 137, and UFC 140 seem to do just that. Try article's for each ECHL season, such as 1997–98 ECHL season or 2005–06 ECHL season.... all simply containing statistical information. Lets look at albums such as Lady Antebellum (album) and Paramore's All We Know Is Falling which include minimal sources and content to match. But I guess that's just my view. As said, I'm sure we can all find certain issues with virtually every article we come across on the Wiki. My point is simple: are there numerous articles here which may fail a notability overview? Yes. Can they be improved and restructured to conform with notability guidelines? Some. Can the same be done with this particular article, as well as others that may come along in the near future? Certainly so. Again, this issue here certainly didn't have to go on as long as it already has. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't always agree with 3bulletproof16, but he said everything I wanted to say (except that he's put it in a wiki-safe tone, so I'll try and not be as blunt as I could be.) As one of the oldest members of WP:PW that's still active after six years, I have seen some abysmal-looking articles (far worse that what the WWE Capitol Punishment article looks like.) Editors like myself and others being only semi-active, at best, is a good reason for articles not being up to par in quality anymore. I have little time to come and edit anymore, personally. As 3bulletproof16 pointed out, our pay-per-view articles started out as merely articles about the results of what happened, and now those have expanded and now we have articles that are featured or are considered good articles. It isn't because there is a lack of content we could create for articles, it's the lack of editors to spend time creating it. I don't particularly like the assessment that some are giving on this AFD about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as the reason for us wanting to keep it. I don't think it's so much of that as it is "Other Crap Doesn't Get Deleted Or Even Looked At". A lot of articles on Wikipedia are of poor quality, yet they survive for some reason. I don't know what it is about professional wrestling articles, but they get beat up more than anything because of the references we take and don't take and they're a prime target for AFDs because of it. December to Dismember (2006) is the prime example of what the project is capable of, with many of the WWE pay-per-view articles we have. It's like the examples of the UFC and of the Paramore album though. Those articles suck, and I'm not particularly saying this because of this AFD. They have 3-4 references at the most and some of them are either primary references or from possibly unreliable sources. They will survive only because of the sham of a general notability guideline that is enforced. The GNG is a good concept, but it isn't applied everywhere nor is it applied fairly. Because of our own system, the article All We Know Is Falling will forever remain as it is. It's going to sit there and collect dust because we have a policy that as long as we think it meets a minimum requirement, it can stay minimally accepted crap forever on Wikipedia. Specifically we have a section for music in our notability guidelines that allows that particular album to have its own article, even though it won't ever be a good article (at least from what I see). I can click the random article button and just list articles that I could put up for AFD: Frog and Wombat, Jean Faure, KIKC (AM), etc. I personally find it hard to accept, that we can have articles about a ten year old independent film stub, an article about a French Senate member that's two sentences, an article about a country radio station in Montana that is one sentence and all three are more notable than this. What bothers me is obscure one-sentence articles about plants, and because it's a plant, it's notable. Articles like that should never exist. They should be put in one or a couple article listing all of them, instead of having a few thousand articles on separate plants that will never be anything but a stub article. But no, because it's a plant, it is notable and we can have one sentence articles about them. It's frustrating as hell to have a topic like professional wrestling, where we can write sufficient, good and featured articles, but they get targeted because it is what it is and we don't have a policy that specifically protects it. — Moe ε 14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bulletproof, I agree the presence of users such as Nascar has taken its toll on WP:PW, but there are many veteran editors still active on WP:PW. I'll make a short list for you so you can see:

Moe (2005)
Oakster (2005)
you, 3bulletproof16 (2006)
myself, Feedback (2006)
MPJ-DK (early 2007)
Nikki (early 2007)
Crisis (2007)
GaryColemanFan (2007)
WillC (early 2008)
Tony2Times (early 2008)
Hazardous Matt (early 2008)

These are all editors, still active today, who have been around for 3 or more years. People like The Chronic, The Hybrid, Naha|, Davnel03 and Mshake3 aren't around on Wikipedia anymore, while guys like Darrenhusted have moved on to editing elsewhere, but we're all still around and can help maintain the project to the top tier status it had during its boom period. I personally don't spent as much time on WP:PW as I used to (due to something called the real world) and I know a lot of the people on this list don't either, but maybe if we help people like Nascar, we can eventually get WP:PW up and running to its former glory. Feedback ^☎ 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McAndrews Estate

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

Disputed PROD. An article about a former estate on the grounds of a New York park with no obvious claim to notability. It appears to fail the GNG; the references and links listed consist of a town history published by the town council, a city council document that mentions it in a list of 59 "MPC places of importance", a New York Times article that does not mention the physical estate at all (only the battle over the inheritance that presumably contained it), and several maps of the grounds. It's possible that the first qualifies as a reliable secondary source giving nontrivial coverage, but I think the others are a stretch. A bit of what's here could potentially be moved into the Crugers, New York article. Khazar (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is basically trivial. This is just real estate. Every parcel has its own history, in other nations generally going much farther back than in New York state. If plans go forward and it is restored to be an historical site, then an article could be considered. I wish those involved well, but delete the article for now.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean no parcel of land is ever a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia? This is a 100 acre property that was once a grand estate, owned by prominent members of the civic and buisness community, foreign diplomats, and contemporaries of the Rockafellers. Furthermore it has been an area that generations of residents have interacted with and have interest in. The group involved in researching (and possible preserving/restoring) the property grows every week, a valuable process that Wikipedia has clearly been a catalyst for. If preservation efforts move forward it will provide context for this historical significance, but that significance already exists. Wespomeroy (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the bar is being set too high on this. It's not a slam dunk, but the article and the primary reference listed do indeed meet the guidelines documented directly in the GNG and related articles. In particular:

Reliable_sources / Reliability - The primary source for this article is a book called "The History of the Town of Cortlandt", which was *not* written by the 'town council' but by a group of local authors and historians that made up the 'Town of Cortlandt Bicentennial' committee. The book references hard research - for instance court, land, and tax records maintained by Westchester County. It may also be worth noting that Cortlandt is not a tiny village. It in and of itself is rich in history, one of the first areas on the continent settled by Dutch and English immigrants. This wasn't Bill and Marla deciding to write a book. It was a government-sponsored, professional, endeavor.

Independent_sources - The authors of the primary reference material had no personal connection to the topic. They had no ownership stake in the property, or family connections to anyone who lived or worked there.

Significant coverage - The 'History of the Town of Cortlandt' mentions the property in several areas, following it's history across almost a century, relating it to other localized events and locations of historical significance. The mentions of the McAndrews Estate are not 'trivial', they are substantive.

Sources - The main reference is absolutely a 'secondary source'. The guidelines clearly state that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage". In this cases the amount of information in the article is tangible but not extensive, thus the reason why there is only one primary source. Furthermore the guidelines state that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Note the terms 'generally' and 'expected', as opposed to 'always required'. This is not a frivolous or commercially-oriented topic. It relates to local history in what is a very historic region. If this isn't a situation where one reference would suffice, what is? The other references and external links (which I agree are questionable standing on their own) are intended to corroborate the research and facts stated in the primary reference.

Independent of the subject - Neither the author of the article (myself) or the authors of the reference material reference work are 'affiliated with the subject' (e.g. self-publicity, advertising, etc.)

I feel the persistent effort to delete this page seem to be overly critical and at odds with Wikimedia's Mission_statement. How would the removal of this page (who's actual content does not seem to be in debate) serve the broader community? I understand the need to maintain the bar of quality and consistency - really I do - but this seems a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face, and I question if the criticism here truly reflects objective and legitimate concerns about the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespomeroy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the bar is being set far too high. I don't think it is trivial, it may well be of local interest, but locally it will be notable. Although there are some omissions and defects - for example, some photos would help and the text needs developing - this is the sort of article that pleasantly surprises you when you type in a subject name into the search box. Definitely keep. Rickedmo (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rickedmo, I understand finding the subject charming--I do too--but could you expand on how you see it as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Again, the only source for this article appears to be a single book self-published by the town for its anniversary; I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how that clears the GNG. (Whether the GNG need to be rewritten, as seems to be the implication of the "Keep" comments here, is a worthy discussion, but one for another section & day.) Khazar (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the point of the article is missing in the deletion debate. This is a county-owned property that is essentially an undeveloped park. Whether the significant enough, and whether the property is listed as a landmark, should also be issues to consider. In this case, it is potentially notable. Many other such properties have articles, from South County Museum to Old Sturbridge Village. I'd like to find out more about this property's history and significance before taking a more definitive stand. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of research, I'm getting the idea that this should possibly be weak keep and move to Oscawana Park instead. The fight over the estate is not major legal precedent. However, I now realize that I've seen the park; the Metro North Hudson line and Amtrak trains cut through it, and there are free images available (see, e.g., [21] [22]). There are some developed trails, historic ruins, mapping info, and is an official site for filming. There are not a lot of news stories, but I think the sources already in there, as well as potential others, would add up to barely passing general notability. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict)Comment I'm surprised that other editors see this as an ambiguous case or keep; even the article's creator (Wes) appears to agree that at most, we have only one secondary source here, which is borderline for "independent", as it was published by the town itself. (For comparison, my own hometown chamber of commerce has published a book detailing the history of hundreds of shops and houses, yet it's hard to imagine this qualifying them each for their own Wikipedia article). Several eds, including Wes and myself, have searched for even a second source without success (see the article talk page), and nobody's proposed a separate criterion this should fall under rather than the GNG. Perhaps as the AfD initiator I'm just too close to see it, but doesn't the lack of sources make this a slam dunk? Khazar (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berian's proposed Keep and move works for me, as the park appears to have at least basic RSs and potential for further expansion. Though some rewriting will be necessary to avoid giving the estate undue weight in the article as it only appears to be one section of this park. I'd also suggest that WP:COI advertising (the stated reason for this article's creation) for the restoration project be kept to a minimum, until this restoration attains some sort of notability as well (local news coverage, etc.) Khazar (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic got major press coverage today. See the latest reference that I added to the article Wespomeroy (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's time to put this issue to rest. This topic has now recieved two major pieces of press, from the Journal News and the Peekskill-Cortlandt Patch, the largest print and online publications in this area. Over 70 people showed up at a tour this past weekend - quite a large crowd for a topic whose notability is being questioned. The main criticism here was in regard to 'notability', but again the GNG states that "Multiple sources are generally expected" and NOT 'always required'. Khazar essentially admits as much by saying the GNG may "need to be rewritten". It doesn't work both ways. Either the GNG is fine as it is and the article is notable, or the GNG needs to be changed and the article should still fine because it predates the rules change. But that should be a moot point, because again there are now multiple references. In addition, I seriously doubt the objectivity of Khazar, the main advocate for the delation of this page. I think this is becoming more about 'winning' or 'being right'. In addition to the inconsistency raised regarding the GNG, they also claim on this page that this is a "slam dunk" for deletion, only to then quickly agree that it should be a 'weak keep and move'. How can both be true? There was also an incident where they falsely accused me of being a spammer and using Wikipedia to "promote my personal projects". If there is a legitmate concern with this article, why is my every move being watched and false assumptions so quickly made? My point is that there is only one real critic here, Khazar, and their objectivity as a moderator on this system should be called into question. Finally, this deletion topic has now twice been relisted. There is obviously no clear consensus, and the references and notability of the article have continued to strengthen. Wespomeroy (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Response: I agree that the local media coverage helps (though "major press" is a little optimistic) and potentially allows this to clear notability, though merging this into an article on the park overall still seems to me the best solution, as the larger park is more clearly notable. To clarify the issue that Wes regarding linkspam, the IP address from which Wes has been editing also has recently been adding linkspam on behalf of Wes's company (which turned out to be linkspamming and deleting links and information about rivals through other accounts as well); when Wes stated that he shared this IP with a coworker, I offered to delete my warning at his talk page. As for objectivity, I can only state that I have no personal connection to McAndrews Estate or Wes, and if other editors see the new sources as making this topic notable enough for inclusion, that's fine with me. In any case, since Wes seems to be interpreting this AfD as a personal issue between us, I'm happy to bow out after this note. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The last two sources are too local, and even with those there isn't enough to meet notability - frankie (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please expand on that? The Journal News is the only remaining broad-circulation newspaper in Westchester County. It reaches 122k housholds in an area with almost 1M people. Does something have to receive coverage on a national level to be consider notable (I doubt it)? Also, can you clarify which part of the GNG proves the notability of this topic to be insufficient? I've provided an analysis of the GNG guidelines above, which to this point no one has refuted. What is the point of having guidelines if they are applied subjectively? Wespomeroy (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the guidelines represent the community standing on the matter, but since it is not possible to foresee the specific circumstances of every case, the guidelines are written in a generic manner that is meant to guide editors in how to assess the validity of specific articles. That has the consequence that the guideline will be taken subjectively, and I believe that it is in the spirit of the project that we acknowledge and address our subjectivity as a personal issue, specially to identify whether we are being biased. Personally, after reviewing the available sources and searching for potential extras (which I couldn't find), I think that the coverage is not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Local coverage is not automatically discarded but national coverage is certainly preferred, since local sources tend to provide undue value to local matters given that their main audience holds a keen interest in them - frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the size of the estate, the money that was associated with this estate historically, the notoriety of Guillaume Reusens that I infer from the court cases that get called up in a Google search on his name, and the estate's current use as a public park, it's a bit surprising that this isn't already established as an open-and-shut case of notability. No it's not all that surprising -- chalk it up to recentism. If the building had been demolished in 1999 instead of 1969, I believe there would be no doubt as to its notability. Additionally, news coverage about the estate has been popping up all over Westchester County ([23], [24], [25]). I predict that additional sources will turn up soon if the article is kept. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ziris

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

Obvious WP:COI, WP:SPA & WP:PROMOTION. Nothing of note about the product. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. This is a professional Digital Signage software application; it makes marquees and menus for electronic billboards and similar displays. No showing that this particular product is likely to be remembered in the time scale needed to get into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to properly respond to this discussion because the talk button is red. The article highlights the basic information about this particular digital signage software. If you are looking for further articles of a similar kind then please have a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signage_product_comparison page. In general, nearly every DS vendor lists their products or their company on Wikipedia, most of them providing little information but marketing tools. The article debated here can certainly be expanded to include more relevant information but I certainly disagree that it should be deleted. I have taken example of the Sony Vegas software page to clone the outline and was intending to expand the page when I have more time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vegas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.199.56 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact that other articles exist is not usually considered a strong argument to keep any particular article, this response may not be all that satisfactory. It's not unreasonable for a new edihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sony_Ziris&action=edittor to judge the suitability of a topic by what's already here. The narrow, focused diligence of PR professionals often outpaces the capacity of generalist volunteer editors to patrol. Still, it's been a long standing problem that dozens of minor software vendors in crowded fields and limited general interest view Wikipedia as a good place to get free publicity for their products. I generally tend to the opinion that businesses and products need to show some sort of significant effect on history, culture, or at least the technical development of the field before becoming entitled to a stand alone article. Almost no digital sign software is going to meet that test, I reckon. I will have a look at the articles on that page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the somewhat-related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital signage product comparison. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against the removal of this page if other DS software/player related pages are deleted as well, seeing as it goes outside of the scope of what WP tends to include within an encyclopaedia, however could any of the WP gurus please clarify why software related pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vegas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualDubMod, etc. are allowed to exist, and even categorized within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_editing_software ? If DS software is considered a non significant software to exist in WP then I would deem the same to be valid for video editing software. 86.21.122.101 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that digital signage software is not allowed to exist here, it is that digital signage software does not get media attention. It is software aimed at businesses, and so very few journalists are going to cover it, outside of maybe trade magazines. The fact that there few in-depth articles on any DS software means that we cannot include it on Wikipedia. WP is a tertiary source, meaning we only cover secondary sources (at least, that is the hope). If there are other articles or topics that fall into a similar situation, please feel free to nominate them for deletion. WP is run by volunteers, and the "anyone can edit" motto means that there are far more problems than anyone has time or desire to deal with. WP does not list everything that exists. Obviously a business seeing a competitors product listed means that they wish for theirs to be listed too, but if it hasn't been significantly covered by secondary sources, it shouldn't be mentioned on WP. The logic in the statements above is: your kids want dinner, but children are starving in Africa, so you can't feed your kids unless you feed Africa too. This deletion discussion is about fixing one problem, the fact that it doesn't fix every problem doesn't make it invalid. Hopefully someone will get to the others in due time, but right now I have the time and inclination to fix one problem. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated VirtualDubMod for deletion. On the other hand, Sony Vegas is certainly notable having significant independent coverage. [26] [27], including a book published by Focal Press (several editions) [28] I hope this helps clarify the difference. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This product may be notable. It gets some mentions in the mainstream press [29] and in industry sites other than the super-niche digital signage ones, e.g. [30] [31] More investigation is needed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also gets mentioned in a few academic-like papers (IEEE etc.) on display walls [32]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. There are also some articles about it in Pro AV magazine. [33] [34]. This magazine seems to be of sufficiently general interest that people, *ugh* pirate it, which you can convince yoursevelves by googling its name. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of work on the article. I think the sum of references justifies keeping it. There's also a claim of technical novelty here. I've not seen other companies' products demoed with odd shaped and mixed orientation displays; click through some of the references for pictures, e.g. [35] FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FuFoFuEd has found coverage. Dream Focus 07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: that twelve sources are required to reference only 5 sentences argues strongly that depth of coverage is lacking. Likewise most of what little coverage there is appears to be limited to fairly specialised trade mags (cf WP:NBOOKS requirement that "at least some of these works serving a general audience"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What FuFoFuEd has identified is indeed correct, there is a circumstance of technical novelty seeing as the Canvas product does something unique. Furthermore it is quite rare to have a B2B product running on PlayStation hardware which makes it notable. Another fact for notability is that it is part of a large array of softwares released by the Sony Corporation, of which Vegas is also a part.— 94.68.229.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The software is novel in that it is commercial software running on the PS3, a very rare thing. In any case, the tags you have added (WP:COI, WP:SPA & WP:PROMOTION) seem irrelevant given the tone and factual nature of the article. None of them suggest that the page should be deleted simply because you might not find it in an encyclopaedia, I can quote tens of thousands of wikipages that would fit into that category, starting with synopsis of TV episodes, games software, synopses of books e.t.c. I would suggest your time would be better spent fixing poor articles or adding new articles then trying to delete perfectly usable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.178.131 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see any reason to remove this Pjcard (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very important mainstream media referral has been added today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13581453 195.46.128.6 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13581453 Pjcard (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I spent 30 minutes evaluating this for a close but wimped out so I'll !vote instead. The nominator's concerns about WP:COI are valid but that can be fixed by normal editing. I found Hrafn's delete argument completely unconvincing because there's a difference between "sources" used to cite information in the article and "sources" used to demonstrate notability at AFD (the latter doesn't even need to be in the article, it's enough that coverage exists) and I don't see how WP:NBOOKS comes into play here. However, of all the sources presented here only this one comes close to being a supersource. The other from the same magazine looks like a press release but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. The rest don't look like significant coverage but again, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Now for something that is just my opinion. A decent argument for inclusion based on this level of sourcing could be made for an open source project but I think the bar needs to be a little higher for commercial software. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very useful product that has become notable in the way that it is used and easily meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FuFoFuEd has found coverage, and meets WP:GNG. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Right

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

This article is about attempts to unite the Reform Party of Canada with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The topic is already covered under the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance and Conservative Party of Canada. Also, it has very few references and is therefore largely original research. TFD (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I'm concerned, this was an attempt between the two parties of the time to gain more power in the parliament. It was a stratagem between the two parties so it would be hard to find references for nonmembers; unless references can be attributed to the claims in the article, it is all original research.Curb Chain (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic's already covered in other articles, then the answer would be to redirect or disambiguate. If we delete it, then we're leaving a redlink that encourages inexperienced users to fill this space with an article again and, where we already cover a topic, that's not what we want.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you say, parts of this effort are covered in articles on the four different parties involved (Reform, PC, Canadian Alliance, and CPC). I do think it is still useful to have this centralized page where the history of the entire effort can be outlined. Otherwise we'd need to tell the same story four times over in those party pages. I do agree it needs more references. There are certainly lots of references out there though, a newspaper archive search finds some 3,600 articles covering this issue. It was one of the central debates of Canadian politics in the decade from 1993 to 2003. - SimonP (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon do you think this is a candidate for a "reverse" WP:Summary style article? Lionel (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic, in my estimation. This National Post story is one of the many needles in the haystack. Keep it tagged for more sources, keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but only if substantially rewritten. Currently reads much like an essay I had to write in Grade 12 about uniting the right wing. (Which was 1997, a topical subject at the time) → ROUX ₪ 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Harding Warburton II

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

Article was speedy deleted by me as an A7, no indication of importance. The text at the time of deletion (and of this nomination) was "was an American businessman who died in a hunting accident in 1936" with a reliable source for this. This qualifies perfectly for A7, neither being a businessman nor being killed in a hunting accident is an indication of importance. However, the article author asked for an AfD instead.

As for the subject (taken separately from the state of the article at the time of the nomination): reliable sources can be found for his marriage, divorce and death, and he had a Royal Aero Club Certificate. Some members family seem to be notable, but that is not inherited. No source indicating any notability for this B. H. Warburton (there also was a I and a III) could be found. Fram (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. If he died in 1936 it seems unlikely that he was ever a member of the Hoover Commission (est. 1947) or even the Commission for Polish Relief (est. 1939). He was apparently socially prominent enough for his obituary to be national news. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from Google, there seems to be little evidence that Barclay Harding Warburton II did anything notable. The New York Times is not a national newspaper in the traditional sense (having much of its news focused on New York state/city) and I think the obituary he received was a) very short b) in a general notices column c) focused more on the way he died than anything else. Unless someone can produce evidence that he has received more significant coverage, I think it's pretty safe to delete this. --Anthem 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert using strikeout as per WP:BANREVERT. 16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)]

Keep Its all in the references and every fact is referenced. Saying that the notability guideline is ignored because the notability comes from the New York Times does not make sense especially when Time magazine also ran an obituary and so did the Associated Press. You might also want to notice that the New York Times is not just a national newspaper but an international newspaper. I can pick it up in every major airport in the world. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name anything he has done in his life that would make him notable? He had a stupid death, a stupid accident a few years earlier, some notable family, and...? I notice that the only claim in the original article, that he was a businessman, is now absent, so the original article was not only speedy deletable but also a rather bad presentation of who he really was. The current article has a lot of refs for little content, many of them very tangential to the actual subject. Substantial refs are the obituaries (which indeed seem more concerned with the unusual cause of death than anything else), and very short articles about abandoned plans and failed marriages. Why wuold we want an article on him? Fram (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask WP:Notability not me, it says: "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 or stand-alone list." Anything else is just subjectivity. You write: "Can you name anything he has done in his life that would make him notable" I ask that every time I see a sports star article and reality television star. People are notable when the media take notice and write about them, for whatever reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't force anyone to write an article. So I am left wondering: why did you feel the need to write an article for this person, to challenge the speedy deletion of the very short, incorrect old version, and to spend your time rewriting it? Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references do not satisfy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who got a NY Times obituary. Edison (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO doesn't trump WP:GNG. You should also know better than to make a vague wave to a guideline without quoting it. You are also ignoring 12 other references including an obituary by the Associated Press and one in Time magazine, which gives the impression you didn't read the article and just read the previous postings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as a more specific guideline, it DOES trump GNG. Also, nice violation of WP:AGF, Richard. I read the article before the Delete !vote, and did not find notability. A minor socialite who got an obituary. Not the stuff of which great encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:N which includes WP:GNG independently defines notability without regard to WP:BIO, see WP:N. There are multiple paths to notability. Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This fellow was the American equivalent of the minor European nobles that sometimes come up on notability issues. Since they usually meet WP:GNG, they usually get kept; and he seems to do the same. He was related by blood or marriage to the socially prominent Warburton, Wanamaker, and Vanderbilt families. He was the sort of dude who shot pheasants and flew airplanes as a hobby. He was invited to serve on government panels based on no obvious qualification other than money and connections. <FoxNews> Wanting to delete this article is class warfare! </FoxNews> - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be a great deal more difficult to argue in favor of notability if the only source that existed was his obituary in The New York Times, but the continuing coverage offered to him by other major national publications about him, his relationships and his exploits -- including a journey by plane around the world -- demonstrate a level of coverage that far surpasses the minimums needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no substantive articulation of notability (just a list of interests), no indication that topic meets WP:BIO, no indication of depth of coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge the three articles into Warburton family. There is some coverage in google books on him. That's the thing, what do socialites do? We have articles on Lady Victoria Harvey and Jade Goody so why not this guy. Harvey is probably the best British example of a socialite doing absolutely nothing except attend "dos".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't being famous for being famous for being a a socialite essentially being famous for who you know & who you're related to, and thus only WP:INHERITED fame-but-not-notability? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I think it would be better for a merged article about the Warburton family which I believe is notable given the coverage of them and the American equivalent to European noble families we have articles for. But as an individual article it seems almost pointless... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources in the article now, showing coverage that indicates notability. He was important enough that Time magazine listed his death in their Milestone sections. [36] This was also given greater coverage in The Meriden Daily Journal - Nov 27, 1936 [37]. He seemed to be covered in the media, and not just because who he was related to. Dream Focus 15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 sources needed for just 11 sentences? That is hardly indicative of the depth of coverage required for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is true that those sources do not have 'depth of coverage', which your formula fails to establish, Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a comment on the two resources I linked to? Time magazine considers the person notable, as does The Meriden Daily Journal. Dream Focus 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TIME gave him only a single paragraph for an obituary -- so no, I would not accept that they 'considered him notable'. That The Meriden Daily Journal (of Meriden, Connecticut, hardly a prominent source) gives his obit a few paragraphs more does not add that much notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only cares if it is a reliable source not a "prominent source". We have three reliable sources with obituaries: Associated Press, Time magazine, and the New York Times. The Meriden Daily Journal is the AP version. I would say anyone whose birth, marriage or death appears in the Time magazine milestones column is ipso facto notable. Most deaths reported in that column are just a few sentence. That has to do with the format of the column, not the notability of the person named. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." So says WP:Notability and I agree, and for this man, he was interesting and unusual enough for me to have him included in Wikipedia. His relatives and connections with "old Philadelphia" people of his time are interesting as part of the upper class scene. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The latest news is that the ~~NYT~~ Time magazine 1926 reference to this person being a member of the "Hoover Commission in Poland, in Paris" is credible as having happened as part of World War I, possibly 1915. Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but born on June 15, 1898, he would be 17 in late 1915, rather early in life to be on a commission in Paris.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The American Relief Administration was set up in 1919, and he would have been 21 and just graduating from college. The commision has nothing to do with Paris, reread the article and the reference. He was divorced in Paris. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to assert "snow keep" when there have been several delete arguments. Edison (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the previous respondent is confusing "speedy keep" with "snow keep". WP:Snow keep is a part of WP:IAR that is an essay, which means I'm saying that I see that the case is closed, it is time to move on. To be sure, if the previous respondent doesn't agree to a snow keep then I see no need to hurry to close this. Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: given that the American Relief Administration existed (outside Russia) from 1919-22, and that BHW2 was only 21 in 1919, got married in Maryland that year, and had a son in 1922, it seems likely that he was simply a junior staffer in the ARA's head office, rather than a field worker in Poland. And I would suggest that such a brief and ambiguous mention of a likewise brief and likely low-level appointment isn't really worthy of mention -- let alone inclusion in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took an earlier version out, and now it is back in the lede in a longer form. I agree with Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) on this detail about the lede, and I will take the whole sentence about this matter out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it. Original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thinking that he was too young is speculation, and thinking that the position was "likely [a] low-level appointment" is again speculation. The Wikipedia rule is verifiability using reliable sources, not speculation. Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have changed it to being a sergeant, not a technical adviser one doesn't exclude the other, but it's the only thing I could verify). I have explained why on the talk page of the article. "Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources." means that three sources have him in Poland, and one seemed to indicate that he was a technical adviser from what you could get from Google Books snippet view, but not from more scrutiny? Or do you have actual sources, quotes, for this piece of information? Fram (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable, the topic should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a typo, Colonel Warden, you certainly mean delete per our editing policy? WP:PRESERVE's second section is "Problems that may justify removal", which links a.o. to WP:NOT: in there, we have WP:NOTDIR, which has the eminently sane remark that "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." (my emphasis) Could you explain what makes Warburton II famous or notorious, or what was the achievement he made? Because, among all the sources and passing mentions, I couldn't find anything at all. Fram (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine he read WP:GNG which 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 or stand-alone list." I am assuming your argument is that he has fame without any achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to which of the sources (most of which appear to give him very superficial mention) "address the subject directly in detail", as required by that guideline. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR goes on to say "One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." In this case, we have several external sources and so, by this measure, the person has some sort of fame or achievement. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that WP:NOTDIR says "featured" (cf WP:N's "address the subject directly in detail"), not merely 'mentioned in passing' -- that rather indicates that a degree of depth, which the sources for this article generally lack, is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tried that argument already and the reply was a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Ten facts from ten sources have, mathematically, the same depth of coverage as ten facts from one source. WP:Directory is there to remind us that appearing in a telephone book does not make you notable, since it provides just two facts about any person, their address and telephone number, neither of which appear in standard biographies. Having three national biographies is a measure of his fame, despite lacking a great achievement. People were called "socialites" then and "celebrities" now. This is someone having fame, despite not having a major achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:GNG does not demand "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" idly or in isolation -- it does so "so no original research is needed to extract the content." The trouble we have had trying to piece together Warburton's Hoover/Polish activities from the tiny snippets available from the sources that we have demonstrates the importance of this. Further, WP:Notability (people) goes on to explicitly state that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would suggest that much of the coverage we have here is "trivial". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is a guideline, EP and NOT are policies. This is a case where the guideline is clearly too lenient when interpreted to the letter, and the article doesn't meet the spirit of it, as it is spelled out in NOT. Fram (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't change your comment after someone has already replied.[38] If you want to compare this to now, he would be an extremely minor "celebrity", D-list probably, who only got in the news (briefly, in passing) when he had another divorce, harebrained idea or stupid accident. It's bad enough that some people create articles on such non-entities living now, but to do the same for someone forgotten for the last seventy years is stretching the GNG, WP:NOT and common sense to new extremes. Fram (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context for the quote you made from WP:NOT was "Genealogical entries" but this topic is not a genealogical entry. You seem to be trying to stretch that policy to exclude subjects who, in your opinion, lack moral worth because they are stupid socialites and celebrities. Opinions of this sort are contrary to core policy and so have no place here. We rely instead upon the judgement of the editorial staff of reputable organs such as Time and New York Times. As they considered that this subject was worthy of notice, we just follow their lead. Warden (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack moral worth"? Umm, no, that's not my position. I don't care about the moral worth of anyone here, I care about what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. That the judgment of the editorial staff at those publications back then was way off is bad, but we shouldn't continue their errors. You claim that it is not a genealogy, but the only reason he has gotten any attention is because of his family ties, not for anything he did. Fram (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have no reason to prefer your judgement to that of independent professionals. Note, by the way, that the genealogy policy is pretty much a dead letter as a recent case demonstrates. Warden (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is covered by WP:GNG also" "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally consider Chelsea Clinton to have done anything except grow up in the White House, but she gets a lot of press. If reliable sources write about it, it is verifiable and has met the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. The argument that "the sources made errors in judgement in noticing him and we should now improve the encyclopedia by ignoring him" is IMO contrary to WP:V and WP:OR. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as having accumulated lasting notability. There seems to be a view in some quarters that WP:GNG are overridden if the notability came about by association with some other person, activity or organisation. I think that is unsustainable. People come to prominence for a wide variety of reasons including accident of birth, inherited wealth, a sexual relationship leading to a film part or whatever, or just being in the right place at the right time. GNG tests the degree of prominence. Once notable, always notable addresses whether he was notable by the standards of the time, not whether he would have attracted so much attention today. And whilst I had never heard of the man, the fact that he seems to have been well known in certain circles in his day means that there is a reasonable chance that somebody studying or reading about the social life of the period might come across him and want to look him up, which is a reasonable test for an encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in his day. Article is much improved with more references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toples

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

This 3-sentences-of-text band article was PRODed under A7, as failing to reflect notability (it says little more than that the band exists). The PROD was removed, without any rationale at all being offered. It appears to lack notability under wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one source at the time of AFD that would indicate that this is a notable Polish music group. As I cannot read Polish, I am relying on machine translation, but this article appears to indicate that they were in the running to compete for Poland in Eurovision 2009. Regardless of whether they did or didn't this is further evidence of notability in the form of coverage in a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whpq. Are you suggesting that based on that one source they have satisfied GNG, or wp:nmusic 1 or 9? I'm happy to have it kept if notable, but I don't see what criterion it satisfies. Also, are we comfortable that the indicated posting by "dodano" is an RS? Thanks. (BTW -- you do excellent work at these AFDs, I've noticed).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - The one source already in the article is from Gazeta Wyborcza, which is a major Polish Daily. I've named a second source above. There appeared to be more coverage but it's very tough going when relying om machine translation. Based on the two sources, and what appears to be more available in Google News, it would seem that the WP:GNG is satisified. For sure the article needs significant work, but I will leave that to an editor that has some Polish language skills. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the 1 source in the article is an RS. I'm still uncertain whether the second source posting is an RS. Also, that posting is not about the band. Rather, it is about one individual -- Marcina Siegieńczuka (and simply mentions in a 2-sentence parenthetical and another 1-phrase mention that he is the Toples leader). That brings into question whether such a mention -- even if the posting is an RS -- is what GNG calls for when it speaks of "significant coverage" (meaning that sources address the subject "directly in detail"). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's not so much the specifics of these sources, as much as the indications in the content are that this is a notable Polish group. At AFD, we are trying to determine if an article is to be kept or deleted. We do not need to have all the sourcing at hand if there are indications that support notability. I think the two sources are indicative of notability, and we could keep the article so that somebody conversant in Polish could work on it. But in any case, this article seems to indicate that Toples is notable and has had hit songs in Poland. I realize that the article is unverified at this point, but there's no reason to disbelieve that they've had a career since 1998. 13 Years with 10 albums and coverage in a major Polish newspaper seems to me to point towards notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's why I asked what criterion you were relying on. You indicated GNG, but GNG requires that we have at hand "significant coverage" of the band, meaning that RS sources that we have seen address the subject "directly in detail". Neither the second posting nor the third -- which may not be an RS -- discuss the band directly in detail. The third source you mention appears to be in the nature of a posting regarding a charity concert, and while it does have a 3-4 sentence mention of the band, it doesn't seem to contribute much to satisfying the GNG requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reliable source tells us that this is a famous band which has had big hits (lack of proper Polish charts makes that harder to quantify as it would be in some countries, but that doesn't make the band any less deserving of our attention).--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Discussion has already been bundled here (we must have both done it at the same time). (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Holland

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

WP:AUTO and does not seem to establish notability. Lots of people write thesises and get their PHD. Curb Chain (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social bonding and nurture kinship

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

This is an article on a doctoral thesis written by the work's author. Although the author has recognized that there is a conflict of interest and is well-intending I am unsure this article is suitable for an encyclopedia. There appears to be quite a lot of synthesis WP:SYNTH as well as original research WP:OR and relies heavily on large quotations. France3470 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyright violation, I'm sure it could be deleted. Also, is there any notability established?Curb Chain (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, although a well-written article, I did a good-faith Gsearch and couldn't really find any significant coverage on either the thesis or its author (whose article I also bundled here). Speaking of which, both articles were created by the doctor himself, so I am going to leave a message on his talk page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess we kind of edit conflicted, eh?Curb Chain (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page the author make it quite clear he was aware of a conflict of interest, and the policy surrounding it, see Talk:Social bonding and nurture kinship. Although that doesn't make it preferable. In terms of notability, I am far out of my depth. I know nothing on the subject and can't really hazard a guess. From reading some of the author's talk page conversations, and a quick google search there is a chance the topic may be notable. It does though seems to be an area rather embedded in academia, my Google search has pulled up almost all essays and papers. France3470 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maximilian Holland The discussion was speedily closed but my argument still stands: "WP:AUTO and does not seem to establish notability. Lots of people write thesises and get their PHD."Curb Chain (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what discussion you are referring to? I am not aware of any previous AFD nom. France3470 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I now see it above. France3470 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Social bonding and nurture kinship while interesting is a summary of the PhD thesis in question. Maximilian Holland doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Samir 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this entry and the responsible manner in which you are handling it. I hope I might clarify a few issues that have been raised. The article provides a summary of the thesis; there is no original work (or synthesis work) in the article itself, it is merely a summary of the (published, peer-reviewed) work, in much the same way that other wikipedia articles pertaining to published work provide a summary of the ideas, and snippets from the content. Of course that doesn't establish notability. As far as published work goes, it is not yet 'well known' but is notable in the sense of 'significant', which I felt was in keeping with the notability guideline "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Having said that, the thesis did make the top five in a journal on the SSRN network a couple of months ago (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=1239622&netorjrnl=jrnl). I hope this helps a bit. Please share your thoughts. (excuse if I can't respond immediately, I'm in an odd time-zone)Maximilianholland (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see Maximilian Holland deleted - I would have done this myself, but I didn't know how. I didn't intend to create that article myself, at the time it had appeared to me that someone else had created it, so I filled in some details (there's a discussion on y talk page about it). I would nevertheless argue that the social bonding and nurture kinship page is of merit, but of course I defer to the community.Maximilianholland (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilianholland, I find it hard to believe that you did not create Maximilian Holland, when this diff proves that you did.Curb Chain (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that he said "I didn't intend to create that article" (emphasis added), not "I didn't create that article". At any rate, I have tagged Maximilian Holland for G7 in light of the above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Maximilian Holland page has been speedily deleted per request. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Delete Maximilian Holland per author's request. Delete thesis article for lack of notability. As Wikipedia editors we can't independently decide what is "significant" enough for an article. We need secondary sources commenting. If the actual thesis itself (and not just some of the ideas discussed in the thesis) was notable per WP:NOTE I'd expect to see external reliable sources used in the "Reception" section. Cloveapple (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human bonding, Nature versus nurture and/or other fitting Wikipedia article. Doctoral thesis without citations have not "independent coverage" so they don't merit a whole article, but they're peer-reviewed so its content can be used to illustrate their main topic. Remove all details and add one or two paragraphs at those articles which are relevant, explaining the main ideas of your thesis. Diego Moya (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve, either by userfying, or by moving it to a subpage of Talk:Human bonding. As currently framed, it is about a thesis that probably lacks notability in itself. The sourced information described in the article could be used to improve main articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Story Teen Video Game 2011

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

This article consists of content made up one day Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mishmash.Curb Chain (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1; tagged as such. If that doesn't work, strong delete per WP:MADEUP. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is some coherence to the text and its not gibberish I have declined your CSD. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot only treatment of a non-existent game, yep, I'd say it's not notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Martin

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

Non-notable actress - no major roles, awards, etc. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: about as obvious as it gets. Toddst1 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She can have her own page on imdb.Curb Chain (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all minor roles. jorgenev 04:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a few trivial mentions of her, but this certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR. The mentioned films she has been in were of either of little notability themselves, or she didn't play a major role in them. Altogether she is not notable. Lord Arador (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is for fully developed and well-sourced articles, which this is not. Not every entry on IMDb has to in turn have a Wikipedia page. I agree with the OP here that there is no birthdate, birthplace, etc. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as speedy. Neutrality^talk 06:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa marocaine

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

unsourced and promotional article about a non notable dance, coi from the creator Jac16888 ^Talk 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, COI and no reason to think this is notable enough for an entry. A2 speedy delete would apply if fr.wiki hadn't already deleted their copy.... Hairhorn (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the original article on fr.wiki had been speedied there as A7, lacking veriable sources and notability (fr:WP:V and fr:WP:N). After that the author copied it to en.wiki. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article apparently describes a new (ballroom?) dance, the "Moroccan salsa" or "Salsatouna". It has a theme of seduction and mutual love; well, if you say so. The steps to the beat are also described. The rites of PNT have been duly performed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could always be put back onto fr-wiki and quickly A2ed... Not really worth the effort. I suppose this could be regarded as spam in a way as it is promotional of this dance. Non-notable anyway. (Peridon on an insecure network in foreign parts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.14.249.59 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google tries to redirect me to salsa mexicaine when I inquire about this. That means, basically, that it can't find anything in French about a Moroccan dance. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn at nominator's request. Neutrality^talk 06:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynchburg City Public Schools

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

While the individual schools may be notable, this article is simply a list that is not needed. I don't think this is an official school district per say (note that it does not contain all the schools found here), and therefore consists basically of WP:OR. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, since Postdlf has demonstrated that this is a real school district, and not just a list of schools within a city, as I first thought. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and contradicts information outside wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Lynchburg City Schools appears to be a genuine public school district (see official website and state DOE evaluation), and such government units are notable. And if this is a valid topic, then any problems are fixable through normal editing and don't require deletion. The article's list of schools further correspond to this list and only omit non-standard schools such as those for alternative education, which can obviously be added to the article easily, so I don't see what the nom's problems are with even the current state of the article, and it is far from indiscriminate. The link the nom presents doesn't support any of his points either; it's the maps for school attendance zones, which any school district that has more than one school at a certain grade level is going to have to divide attendance. So I don't see what "information outside Wikipedia" contradicts this article. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the state DOE link, that works for me. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the comments of Postdoc that the districts website agrees with the article, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except where they fail verifiability." This appears to be such a verifiable school district. Unless the consensus of editors here at AFD has changed, it iss appropriate to keep the article. Edison (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the three missing schools and a link to the district's website. It took 9 minutes. (I must be slowing down). Does that satisfy the problems seen by the nominator and Curb Chain, the only delete !voter? Edison (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What you added really didn't matter to me, just that this was found to be a real district (which I know are kept). Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a general matter of practice, we keep secondary schools and degree-granting institutions and redirect pages on elementary schools to general pages on school districts — like this one. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legit school district. Virginia has a weird thing where moderately sized cities (~40-50k people) are considered counties in their own right. Thus lynchburg has it's own school, police, etc. Oddly enough, these independent cities are sometimes the county seat for the surrounding county even though the city and county are separate counties. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, thanks for explaining that. The "Lynchburg City Public Schools" was what first made me think this was just a list. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Sree Gita Sangha

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

PROD that was contested: Temple of unclear notability. Eeekster (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability as per WP:ORG and reads like self-promotion per WP:SPIP.--Michaela den (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honolulu University

The result was keep. 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Verplanck's Point

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

I don't have access to the book that's referenced, but myrevolutionarywar.com is not a reliable source, and there are many sources describing the events around Stony Point in July 1779. Verplanck's was fired upon, apparently at distance, but it was not taken, and there does not appear to even have been any attempt to assault it (contra this article's assertion). We don't write whole articles about minor military movements; at best Robert Howe's movements merit a paragraph in Battle of Stony Point, but I don't think anything in this article is salvageable. (Consider, for instance that it states that Howe decided to besiege Stony Point. This complete and utter baloney, as readily-available accounts of the action show. Ditto that the British at Verplanck's were "pounded into submission".) Most of this article is just a bad rehash of the Stony Point article. Benson Lossing's account. Hugh Rankin's account.

Two versions of this article have previously been deleted (one under Battle of Verplank's Point). Magic♪piano 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 00:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources indicates that it is likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Heino (television presenter)

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

Article was deprodded [39] without addressing the underlying concern of lack of reliable sources to establish notability. It appears the primary claim of notability is being a commentator on the Eurovision Song Contest. I haven't been able to locate any sources that describe his role in the contest in a substantial way to suggest notability. Currently the only source on the article is a biography from his employer. I recognize that there may be materials in Swedish to establish notability, but since I do not speak Swedish I must rely on others to provide such sources. If those are discovered I will gladly withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This nomination cant be serious. Pekka Heino is one of swedens most famous television presenters. This article might need references...but not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if you could provide such references (particularly if you can find them in Swedish), since I have been unable to turn them up to establish notability by Wikipedia standards of reliable sourcing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pekka Heino is known for far more things than being a commentator on the Eurovision Song Contest, and I would disagree with the English article about that being his main claim of notability. His likewise unsourced article on Swedish Wikipedia lists more. When YLE says lists what he's done, ESC is only the fourth thing they mention, and definitely not what they see as the most important. His more recent work with Godkväll would probably be more important as well, and sv:Vi i femman and sv:Röda tråden. As the article name suggests, he's well known as a television presenter (programpresentatör). /Julle (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it sounds like it would be helpful if there could be some reliable sources turned up to help keep this article, as well as to properly source the Swedish article, which sounds like it suffers from the same problem, eh? I wonder why there are no reliable sources considering all the notability claims? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. I get 1496 hits when I search for "Pekka Heino" in Swedish (and Norwegian) newspaper articles (through Mediearkivet, "The Media Archive"), so notability should be easy enough to establish. I, however, know next to nothing about television, and suggest someone who has a clue about the subject decides what is relevant to include and what is not. /Julle (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep My improvements to the article should show his notability. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Thank you for the Swedish sourcing, Theleftorium. With the sources now on the article I would like to withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigTent

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

Recreated CSD, non-notable website article written by an SPA. Websites mentioning that it was purchased by a more notable company do not make this company notable. If Lady Gaga buys a sandwich, we don't make an article for that individual sandwich. I should also mention that the more notable parent company now redirects to the guy who owns that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully contend that this article is not promotion any more than the pages for Ning, GroupSpaces, etc. If this page is viewed as promotion, all similar wikipedia pages of startup companies should be nominated for deletion.

If the issue is nonnotability, BigTent should be a brief mention on a Federated Media page, and the Federated Media page should not just redirect to its CEO. -Numerusclausus, BigTent page creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numerusclausus (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Battelle, who owns the parent company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do nominate all similar wikipedia pages of startup companies.Curb Chain (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Volny

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guidelines. GNews/Gbooks hits are all either trivial or promotional. Prior AFD turned on the significance of the "European Gay Porn Awards," which have since been determined by consensus to be non-notable and therefore not contributing to notability.[40] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of notability.Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Habib Ullah

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

Spammy, probably auto-, bio. Is he actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes a definite claim for notability. Note that the AfD notification was removed by an IP, so that may have disturbed the discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page for business guy, written in ridiculous hagiographic prose: "a living example of the business acumen of his fraternity", yes it seriously says that and he apparently typed that without giggling. He might be notable, but if so this needs a total ground-up rewrite and we're better off starting fresh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Note: The creator of that article, User:Hasham1 and User:Hasham2 has been indefinitely banished from Wikipedia. This article is clearly auto-written. It's too trivial to sustain notability. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Converter (Unit Conversion Software)

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

Software with no indication of notability. A PROD tag was put on it shortly after creation in August last year; it was contested with the argument that "most of the references in the article are from notable sites, and the software is known to be reputable". Unfortunately, that a software programme is available for download from a notable website does not make the product notable, and there is no trace of any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly direct me to information explaining what exactly constitutes 'significant' coverage and examples of 'reliable independence sources'? Ant2101 talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, of course - the relevant policies/guidelines are explained here, here, and here. Please also see this policy. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume dabinpons

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Acting roles have been minor supporting and uncredited roles, rather than significant ones. Cind.amuse 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. 1 gnews hit says it all [41]. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms (Głubczyce)

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

This page is a selective duplicate of what can as well presented in Czech exonyms. I see no reason to have a separate list for this particular location. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, should be intelligently merged, not deleted. This is useful encyclopedic information and it would be irresponsible to just delete it because it's not presented in the optimum way. If it's confirmed that the information has been preserved on other pages and any existing links to this title have been corrected, then OK.--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with merging, actually that is what I meant to suggest with my nomination. But once everything has been cleaned up we won't need the redirect. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now added the names from this article to Czech exonyms and it turned out that there are no relevant article links to fix anyway. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, in that case I've no objection to deleting this.--Kotniski (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RedundantCurb Chain (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant content fork per WP:CONTENTFORK and since the relevant content has already been merged into the suggested article, I see no reason to delete.--Michaela den (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All content is already present at Czech exonyms. Guoguo12 (Talk) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Reliable source/Discogs (unreliable source)

[1]