Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 2
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bath Killer Bees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another non-notable British Uni sports team in what is a niche sport in Britain (American football, in this case). A Google search reveals nothing other than sites for them, their rivals or basic news reports on the Bath Chronicle. Many previous AfDs have concluded that they are non-notable, and I can't see how this one is different. (And if anyone's in doubt as to their popularity, take a look at their Flickr account and count the number of spectators.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the Bath Chronicle reports appear to be mostly reprinted press releases. Other than that, we got some apparently copyvio Youtube videos (of a show that does not demonstrate significant coverage), the student newspaper (not a WP:RS - student journalists tend not to be too hot on fact-checking), a blog that does not provide significant coverage, and some photos. It's very rare for British university sports teams to meet our notability standards, and this does not appear to be one of the exceptions to this rule. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pfainuk talk 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral at least they have sources this time. I'm not concerned about the videos because they are links to the videos on another site (unless I'm missing something). Can't say that I'm super-excited myself about keeping this article. As to the reliability of the sources cited... well, those are indeed questionable-but I'm not an authority on reliable sources so I deem that voice to others. And, of course, if it does indeed violate copyright then policy is very clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the copyvio. The other videos are self-published. Pfainuk talk 19:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks the necessary substantial sources needed to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable. Whilst the article is one of the exceptions in its class in that it actually has a number of references, I would question the independence and/or reliability of #3 (Video produced by rival team), #8 (Returns 404 but appears to be site of photographer), #9 By the peacock named "Bath Killer Bees Media Productions", and #10 From the University of Bath's own in-house newspaper.
- In terms of notability, this leaves:
- 5 references from the Bath Chronicle, a weekly newspaper with circulation of 20,000; Coverage in the Bath Chronicle does not appear to be regular, or sustained. In fact it appears that every mention in the paper has been used in this article. Such little coverage in a local and low circulation title can't, in my opinion, really demonstrate notability.
- 2 blogs on the Daily Mirror website, which do nothing other than mention a match result. Incidentally, it is perhaps worth note that this blog has made a grand total of 17 posts on matters relating to BUAFL. 16 of these were between February 2009 and April 2009, with 6 of these concerning a single match.
- The obligatory mention in the "other sport" section of the local section of the BBC website that hasn't been updated in 2 years.
- The only other mention I have come across trawling the Internet is a single 2min filler on Five's NFL show (that is broadcast in a graveyard slot - either 7am on Sunday or after midnight).
- In terms of notability, I dont think that this level of coverage for a sports team that has played regularly for over around 20 years (even if we just look at the last 10 where due to Google et al finding mention should be easy) demonstrates notability. I'm sure most Sunday League teams get more coverage, and it is absurd to consider including the hundreds of such amateur teams that exist.
- Furthermore, although the article has references, it is by no description fully referenced. Given that just about every source available has been used to get the article to this stage, I don't see how the article can be progressed any further. That is, large tracts of the article will have to remain unreferenced or be removed. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- British Collegiate American Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and defunct British University American Football league. Sports teams (and their leagues) at British Universities aren't generally notable. In the majority of cases they are unheard of even on campus. In terms of leagues and organisations, the once exception may be British Universities and Colleges Sport (nee BUSA) which acts as a "holding organisation" that runs most/all of these leagues. BCAFL doesn't appear to be an exception to this rule. A google search turns up little beyond sites directly related to the teams that participated in the league.
As a guide in considering whether to bring this Afd, I noted the following essay for soccer notability. Although the wrong type of football, it seems a fair guide to me:
- Are members are eligible for national cups: AFAICT, No.
- Is the league at the country's highest level: No. That is BAFL and its successors.
- Does it meet broader WP:N criteria: AFAICT, no.
The article is also unreferenced, and given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources, for what is now a defunct league (and thus not generating coverage), I see no prospect of referencing it. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if anything, it might be worth keeping the info in another article and perhaps making this a re-direct.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG. The article is entirely unreferenced and given the lack of available references it seems unlikely that it is possible to write a policy-compliant article on the subject. Pfainuk talk 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It lasted for more than 20 years and it was the predecessor of the British Universities American Football League. I'm getting pretty tired of the "I know that most British people don't care about this" argument, and while that probably is enough to deem individual college clubs to be non-notable, there's no reason to carry it over to erasing all mention of the subject. In the United States, colleges and university students form clubs to play sports that aren't funded by the university itself. Most U.S. college rugby clubs operate this way, with the students making agreements about when to play, how to determine a "champion", etc. When the students of different colleges travel to face the students in other colleges, even if it's for a "foreign" sport, it's notable. Mandsford 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And would be the same in almost any British university sport. It doesn't matter what the origin of the sport is, except inasmuch as the fact that American Football is popular in a country where university leagues and teams in major sports are generally notable encourages people from that country to assume that the culture is the same elsewhere. And it isn't. If we had articles on five dozen university hockey teams and the BUCS hockey leagues, then exactly the same reasoning would apply as applies to American football. Pfainuk talk 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its not about it being a foreign sport. University sport isn't notable in the UK period. Even most students on campus don't know what there teams are up to, often they don't know the teams exist. There are very few exceptions to this rule. I can think of only one - The boat race. What happens in the US is irrelevant to this AFD, as there is a completely different culture in the British HE sector, and the organisation of university sports is completely different (e.g. AFAIK, university sports and societies are quite lavishly funded by universities. Since, the majority of HE funding still comes from central government, ultimately the taxpayer). Pit-yacker (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - from a Google News archive search, it seems to be clearly notable. --B (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - On the whole, the articles seem to be, usually patchy coverage, in local papers (typical circulation 50,000) of the local university's team. As far as the league itself is concerned, most do little more than acknowledge its existence. That is, they say something along the lines of "local team is playing/played a match in BCAFL". The best that is going to give us is references for some odd results in section 3. What about the rest of the article? Pit-yacker (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its also worth adding that the vast majority of the coverage in both old and new leagues surrounds about 3 teams coming from 4 titles. Birmingham Lions (largely Birmingham Mail (nee Evening Mail) and occasional Birmingham Post). Bath Killer Bees (Bath Chronicle). Cardiff Cobras (South Wales Echo).Pit-yacker (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Fully notable. See Touchdown: UK by Nick Richards (2009; Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse. ISBN 9781438929316). SteveStrummer (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SteveStrummer's link demonstrates that the topic of American football in the UK may well be notable. But the UK's American Football culture (such as it is) is and has always been far more geared toward the NFL than toward the domestic game. The best idea we have of the contents of the book are the two reviews, both of which mention one league: the NFL. The "golden decade" to which the title refers is the 80's, when the NFL was on television. Meanwhile, the page does not mention university or the BCAFL or indeed domestic American Football at all. I would contend that the existence of this book, without any evidence that it even mentions the topic at hand, does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pfainuk talk 06:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per Pfainuk. Has anyone actually read the book Steve Strummer's suggests? Can he, or anyone confirm significant, or any mention, of BCAFL? I find it far more likely that the book concerns Channel 4's coverage of NFL, together with (non-student teams) such as the London Monarchs, which did, albeit briefly, register on the general radar in the UK. I ask for confirmation, as without wishing to be rude, SteveStrummer's contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Braves a) suggest he hasn't. b) Appear to come from a starting point that US college teams are notable so UK teams must also, and that there might be as yet undiscovered sources to prove this. c) That proof of notability of American Football in the UK is proof of notability of particular student related teams or leagues Pit-yacker (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article concerns itself with the meaning and brief etymology of a word, and cites a few instances of its use. It does not concern itself with its target subject at all. That is, it is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedic article. I42 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable word and concept. Article needs expansion. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I disagree with the nominator's statement. The article contains more than merely a definition of the word; there is a description of how the concept developed, the traditional use of the name in Yiddish theatre, and its use in various contexts that do not all fit within the definitions of the word at wiktionary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable topic which may be easily improved per our editing policy. I have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, Col. Warden, and Ssilvers; and rescue. Obviously notable term, and the nom made no effort to save before nomination; see the thousands of possible sources at Google scholar, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news search shows that 50,200 news articles use the word, and regular Google finds it in 2,410,000 places. And that's just checking that one spelling of it. It does exist, a commonly used word, and many people will look to Wikipedia to find out what it means. The article isn't just a definition, but proper context and notable historical examples of its use. Dream Focus 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HSW Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion doesn't meet WP:CORP, and this particular title also fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 20:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some reliable sources can be found. Not much on Google. JNW (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable title. Mal Case (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Un-notable.--Curtis23's Usalions 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- American Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are primary and an iTunes listing. Absolutely no reviews or production information found; so obscure that the label doesn't have an article. Article is also two years out of date ("In 2008, Chenoa will release a new version"). Only sources found amounted to "Artist x appears on this album" with absolutely nothing substantial. The Allmusic listing is blank, too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with maybe a mention in American Idol. This is the best coverage I found in reliable sources, so it's difficult to see any real notability here.--Michig (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is not an official American Idol CD and has no reliable sources to maintain an article. Aspects (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Aeschi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:Autobiography (or WP:COI) of non-notable person per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO: head of political party in one village; not elected to any public office. References are all Wikipedia:Primary sources, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Autobiography. Runs for a seat in the cantonal parliament in October 2010, but so far holds no elected office and has not had any third party coverage that I can see; therefore fails WP:BIO. Has also been speedy deleted for the same reasons at de:Thomas Aeschi. Sandstein 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Contemplative prayer. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mystic prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism. No evidence that this an established term. Pure original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Comment withdrawn.— C M B J 23:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mystic Prayer sounds like "Mystical Prayer." Mystical prayer is also called Contemplative prayer. Since there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplative_prayer in wikipedia, this article on "Mystic Prayer" is redundant. BTW Mysitcal Prayer is well documented: A partial listing of books from Google :
- Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism: an analysis of Maʻaseh merkavah By Michael D. Swartz [1]
- Mystical Prayer Is for (Almost) Everyone By Ernest J. Fiedler, Lawrence S. Cunningham [2]
- Mystical prayer according to St. Jane de Chantal [3]
- Guidelines for Mystical Prayer [4]
- Mystical prayer according to St. Francis de Sales [5]
- Mystical prayer for all [6]
These are some of the many books on Mystical Prayer. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment. Please note that prayer in mysticism is very different then mystic prayer. Alan347 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You are very right in saying that mystic prayer sounds a lot like mystical prayer. Mystic and mystical have the same connotation. However, my choice of mystic over mystical is because it is mystic that implies the 'of' as in 'related to' prayer itself while in mystical, the 'of' as in the 'related to' is to the term 'mystic'. therefore the term mystical is further removed from the adjective mystic, which I am using here to describe this sort of prayer. Alan347 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to prev. - Mystical prayer is documented, refer to list of books generated online search engine, on the talk:Mystic prayer Alan347 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Contemplative prayer per Prsaucer -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Redirect Mystic prayer focuses on the transcendent element of prayer. Alan347 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The following two books which are related to "mystic prayer" as opposed to "mystical prayer" shows at least that the term "Mystic Prayer" is not the neologism of the author. (1) The prayer of simplicity: the link between meditation and mystic prayer [7] (2) Common Mystic Prayer [8] Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Contemplative prayer - either it's a basic synonym (the main cited source refers to it as "so-called passive or mystical prayer") and we can just redirect, or it's subtly different, in which case it only needs a sentence in the "Contemplative prayer" article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply: Mystic prayer represents the dynamics of prayer where God communicates to the person. That's why it is mystic, partly shrouded where it can never be understood fully, however as I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia in the article mystic prayer
- Mystery, in its strict theological sense is not synonymous with the incomprehensible, since all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; nor with the unknowable, since many things merely natural are accidentally unknowable, on account of their inaccessibility, e.g., things that are future, remote, or hidden. In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.
- Prayer is always mystic because it always admits of the dynamism where God communicates back to the person. In the article Mystic prayer, this is put in the foreground. That is why I wanted to include the article as an original entry and as the focus of teaching so widely discussed in religion - refer to Prsaucer1958's google book research where mystic prayer is the subject of two books. Alan347 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If prayer is always mystic, then I guess we don't need a separate article on "mystic prayer" when we already have one on "prayer." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is always mystic, its just that we are not always aware of its mystic element. in mystic prayer it is put in the foreground. Mystic prayer is the subject of much concern. Alan347 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If prayer is always mystic, then I guess we don't need a separate article on "mystic prayer" when we already have one on "prayer." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Contemplative prayer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aksel bratvedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally tagged as a BLP prod on the grounds that none of the references mention the subject. The creator added more references, but was unable to come up with anything other than primary sources and press releases. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete puff piece for nn financier. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - From what I see right now, there are only two references that are independent. One is from Bloomberg and simply mentions his name. The other is from a source of arguably questionable reliability and again, only mentions the subject. There seems to be a lot of WP:OR; most notably the idea that he helped save the banking economy in Norway. If that's the case, it needs to be backed up with reliable and independent sources which, at the same time, would establish notability. I'd be willing to change my !vote if references are found. OlYellerTalktome 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Reference Please see this link for notability and verification. Independently published.[1]
- That's a press release, not an article. See wikipedia:reliable sources. Hairhorn (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not that sure about the chap's personal notability, but the company he heads certainly is: The Financial Times search function. --Technopat (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Further reference and hyper link added to Wiki Bad Bank page. Please note Corporate Notability implies Personal notability on its executive board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbsmith (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that "Corporate Notability" does not imply "Personal Notability" on its executive board. WP:NOTINHERITED says so rather explicitly. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, Please can we close this debate now, there is overwhelming evidence in favour of notability etc, Txs 81.100.208.249 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable (complete absence of "overwhelming evidence") and working for a notable company isn't by itself enough to make an individual notable. And please stop removing the AFD tag, thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be frank Airhorn your'e not correct. Holding a senior position in a major public company implies notability, that's the reason why they call it Chairman. Please reconsider your views. 81.100.208.249 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to brush up on the actual notability guidelines. And don't forget to log in when you comment. Hairhorn (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a mention of the Chairman, or at most a few sentences, should suffice in his company article. No notability otherwise. Jusdafax 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Tomas e (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hi All, I have done extensive checking here and does indeed seem to be notability, based on participation in many mergers, public company listings, political influences and previous achievements and contributionsLorenzomarcs (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Lorenzomarcs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete This is (or at least appears to be) a CV or vanity page of a man doing a job (or a few jobs). I'll take OlYeller's word for the lack of mention in the refs, and would note that the 'high growth companies' developed 'as a CEO and Executive Chairman' are not named. When the term 'his strength' or similar is used, the word 'spam' comes to my mind. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This reads like a CV. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom.--Sulmues Let's talk 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Jclemens makes a good case for merging with Jews for Jesus but he was the only one mentioning it. I recommend a standard mergeto request be made. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jews for Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence that this organization meets the general notability guideline; specifically, there are no citations to reliable, third-party sources as needed to meet our policy on verifiability. *** Crotalus *** 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I found articles about Jews for Judaism in the following five major newspapers: Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Los Angeles Times (Sep 5, 1992) [9]
- The Washington Times (August 7, 1998) [10]
- Jerusalem Post Jul 9, 2006 [11]
- USA Today (Aug 19, 1996) [12]
- Salt Lake Tribue (March 8, 1997) [13]
- Keep Clearly notable group. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jews for Jesus. Looking at the mentions above, 4 of 5 clearly place "Jews for Judaism" in the context of a larger focus on (and as a reaction to) the "Jews for Jesus" group. If this group were independently notable, there should be multiple, non-trivial, reliable source mentions that mention THIS group, without mentioning "Jews for Jesus". Still, V is met, and it's clear that this group exists as a criticism of the more notable group, so merging into a criticism of Jews for Jesus seems the appropriate way to cover this. It's what the RS'es cited above seem to do. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Prsaucer1958.—msh210℠ 12:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a well-known counter-missionary organization; there are more than 400 news articles about this organization shown at Google News archives. It doesn't just deal with Jews for Jesus, or even just Messianic Judaism. See, for example, this very recent article from Ha'aretz in which a Jews for Judaism representative is quoted in connection with the reported activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Israel[14]; and they are also mentioned repeatedly for their criticisms of the Kabbalah Centre[15][16][17].--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY evident within the 13,500 Google hits alone. This organization is one of the only purely Orthodox Judaism counter-missionary organizations with broad support and influence in North America. IZAK (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that, given the lack of substantial coverage and the fact that he's neither been nominated or elected, the subject is insufficiently notable for an article at present. ~ mazca talk 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Roco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:POLITICIAN, WP:Autobiography with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The only mention in a reliable source I can find is this (referenced in the article), which only gives an in-passing reference to his candidacy, which is insufficient to establish notability anyway, per the politician-specific guideline. IMDB only lists one minor role as an actor, which doesn't satisfy the actor guidelines either. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this AfD has to be closed right now, I'd think it would be a weak delete, and possibly merge any useful content to United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010. Although other members of the Roco family (mentioned in the article) may be well-known in the Philippines, that doesn't convey notability on this particular family member in Hawaii. He's not notable as an actor. Per WP:POLITICIAN, mere candidacy does not convey notability, barring significant coverage, which is hard to find as of yet. It does seem, however, that major party nominees for highly important positions like U.S. Senate do tend to get their own articles--and certainly he will get coverage if he's the nominee.
Right now Mr. Roco appears to be the only Republican challenging Senator Inouye; if he remains so, I'd imagine he'd qualify for an article. Since the filing deadline is less than 3 weeks away, possibly it would make sense to delay closing this AfD until July 20, the last day for candidates to file.[18]--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on further reading (and contrary to earlier news reports I read about this) it appears there are other Republicans running, including 2004 candidate Cam Cavasso,[19] so I've revised my comments above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability is not established and all substantive article content has been authored by the article's subject, which appears to breach WP:PROMOTION and (possibly) WP:NOTOPINION. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. Gage (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has never held office, and at this point he doesn't even have the Republican nomination. Maybe after the September 18 primary an article could be considered, but only if he gets significant coverage in addition to earning the nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you all decide - I saw the wikipedia page on the senate election, and typed the entry,John Roco. It seemed odd wikipedia page on election but no click on John Roco so I made it. I tried remove all unbiased parts, but is hard when you are actually John Roco so please jury. If decision to Delete or even Speedy Delete is made and pub happens as may if I win, have saved copy of the editing template for the file. You are the experts, I leave it to you. --John Roco (talk) 12:33 AM, 9 July 2010 HAWAII TIME —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoodie Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. Except that one of his songs was the #1 song on a notable indie charts website. Also "The Diamond Cuts" hasn't been released yet -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "released one mixtape" does not confer notability - maybe in the future. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, possible speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Closing early per WP:SNOW consensus that this is a WP:BLP1E case. How and whether to cover this matter in the Al Gore article is being discussed at Talk:Al Gore#Dispute over allegations of sexual abuse. I suggest that a redirect be created only if (and when) there is a stable consensus that the incident should be covered there. Sandstein 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Molly Hagerty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person isn't notable. This article should be:
- A redirect to Al Gore, likely to the appropriate section of his page (probably with a merge of this text)
- A redirect to an article about Al Gore and this incident (if said article exists, again, very likely to contain much of this text)
- Deleted outright.
In any case, I'm certain that this should not be a standalone article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge referenced content to Al Gore per WP:BLP1E. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, another bad faith deletion nomination. Yes, Timneu,I'm SURE you believe it should be redirected to the main Al Gore article, and I'm SURE that "if said article exists, again, very likely to contain much of this text." But as you KNOW, Mr. Bad-Faith-Timneu, any mention of the incident -- which has been reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. -- has been BANNED at the main Al Gore article, which is patrolled by a liberal cadre of editors which no doubt includes you as a sock-puppet.
So instead of wasting time, let's take this "discussion" in another, more proper direction. Answer YES or NO, Timneu, were you truly UNAWARE that mention of the incident has been prohibited at the Al Gore article and elsewhere on Wikipedia? And if you (falsely) answer "no," do you sincerely expect us to believe that someone who was obviously scouring Wikipedia second by second looking for mentions of Hagerty to delete -- and found the article within minutes of its creation -- wasn't aware of the censorship efforts? Are you claiming you didn't bother to look at the Al Gore article to see if it "in fact contained much of this text?" Stop wasting our time with this NONSENSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I've never been to the Al Gore article. I'm not a sock-puppet. I just patrol new articles. This is a clear WP:BLP1E, so a redirect is warranted, not an article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFrom brief research this appears to be an attack piece born out of the disagreement on the Al Gore page. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually
SpeedyStrong Delete - this diff [20] from the editor who started this article pretty much confirms it as an attack piece --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm the nominator of the AFD, but I'm not sure that is right. I guess I wonder: why isn't there mention of this topic at Al Gore? — Timneu22 · talk 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a separate question (one I'm not going to get involved in :D) - the content *is* only applicable in the Al Gore article, whether it goes in or not is another discussion/issue. From the look of the talk page this article looks like a "shot fired" in the argument over whether to include this content or not :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the nominator of the AFD, but I'm not sure that is right. I guess I wonder: why isn't there mention of this topic at Al Gore? — Timneu22 · talk 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually
- Delete - that it's WP:BLP1E is made clear by there being only one sentence about the nominal subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. There is essentially nothing about Hagerty in the article, and at least some of the sources about Gore are dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpeedyStrong Delete - per nom. Meets or exceeds WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT as this is an unproven allegation. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Move to Al Gore unwanted sexual contact allegations or something similar. The woman should obviously not have a separate article about her, but I think the controversy is notable enough to have an article. --B (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- after thorough research on this subject, unlike the admitted "brief" research by Tmorton and the "didn't look at the article" research by Timneu, I determined that this is a national news story that has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, etc. etc. etc. No, it is not an "attack article", is is simply an article that contains facts that you consider to be "an inconvenient truth." Your attempt at suppressing this news is "attack." Why not delete the Monica Lewinsky article -- how was she any more notable as a twenty-something intern? Or are you all misogynists who think all women lie about sexual assault? SHAME ON YOU!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 Jul 2010 (UTC)
- Why would I need to look at Al Gore to nominate this article for deletion? Again, I still think a redirect may be useful here, depending on the validity of the story, which seems uncertain at this point. — Timneu22 · talk 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By brief I was implying it didn't take much to find out :) This is not the place to discuss it but from the looks of things the reason it is not included in Al Gore is because of the fairly strict BLP rules. Allegations are generally not added in unless they are substantial. You won't get very far suggesting this is the result of misogynism; keep raising the issue sensibly on the article talk page and eventually consensus will be fully established. Creating articles such as this are *not* the way to go about this :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please rememberWP:NPA when considering comments such as these. We're supposed to be looking at the article under consideration, not others which are somewhat related. --Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, consider a speedy per serious BLP concerns. WP:ONEEVENT is cut and dried here, as this woman is not notable for anything else but this allegation, and coverage is not even remotely up to the threshold of, say, Paula Jones. We're more in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker territory here...a nattering attempt to fork attack content that isn't even suitable for the Al Gore article. I just realized that this article's creator is also the same one that pushed the Vera Baker idiocy a few months back as well. This is a serious single-purpose account that should be reigned in quickly. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK andWP:ONEEVENT BrendanFrye (talk)
- None of those are mentioned in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --B (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. My major concern here is WP:BLP1E, which is why the nomination suggested redirects/merges. — Timneu22 · talk 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask why you didn't just turn it straight into a redirect then, rather than listing it for an AfD? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I didn't know where to redirect it. Didn't know if there was a separate article for it, or how much of this to merge to the destination. I just saw this and recognized the one-event aspect of it. I figured someone more involved with the particulars would know where to send it and what to merge. — Timneu22 · talk 15:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask why you didn't just turn it straight into a redirect then, rather than listing it for an AfD? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. My major concern here is WP:BLP1E, which is why the nomination suggested redirects/merges. — Timneu22 · talk 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are mentioned in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --B (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - People notable for only one event rarely qualify for their own article, and this is a good example of that. Furthermore, if there is a consensus against the inclusion of this event on the Al Gore bio, this should probably not be a redirect either. As an aside, this article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and so should not be speedily deleted. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the story is valid, we can redirect the title to the appropriate location. Agree that speedy isn't right here. — Timneu22 · talk 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Lear's Fool rational above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the reasons are listed above, but my own thinking is that this person isn't notable enough on their own, it might be good to move the information to another page such as Al Gore's page or to one on the controversy itself but Molly Hagerty doesn't need her own page. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete at this time per the reference the someone added above [21] This looks to be going from a "One Event" to a "One Event that is an unproven allegation" and BLP would say that we dont give any space to that sort of thing. Should the prediction in the article prove inaccurate and the legal case does move forward, perhaps some type of article in the future, but not now.Active Banana (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Disturbing that one's reward for being an alleged crime victim is to have her life defined by Wikipedia based on that one event. Townlake (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Al Gore. This person clearly is not notable outside of this one event, which barely rises to the level of an event. The page could always be recreated later if she become notable for other things, though I doubt that will ever happen. —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Lear's Fool. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. — C M B J 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Global storm activity of 2006-2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have stayed undecided over whether to nominate this for AFD but today decided I should throw it out there for a community decision. Content that was plit from this article was previously deleted under quite a conclusive AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non_Winter_storms_of_2004–2007. The concerns on that page were that this sort of article may be Original Research and consist of mainly non-notable events. Further more it was suggested that the content would be better (if it were retained) in articles about the regions or types of storms. I really can't call on this one :) Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - Snow Storm in East Asia (and his new account) have put in a lot of work into this article - which is one reason I hesitated to nominate it. In my mind the ideal situation would be the extraction of any encyclopedic information into regional/topical articles and then the removal of the page. This sort of page (list of storms etc.) is more applicable for an external site. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Aggregating this type of information on a planetary scale is quite relevant in a modern encyclopedia. — C M B J 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that this falls easily under WP:OR (it's synthesis of data). More importantly if you read the page a lot of the content does not really seem notable. example: Heavy rainstorms sweep over Bamako in Mali on August the 6th[8]. If you click through to the reference it is a travel diary that mentions a storm on the date in question. Unfortunately it is a not uncommon type of storm (they happen globally on the same scale all the time), no one died, no damage appears to have occured etc. The vast majority of the page is synthesise original research into fairly minor events. Even the tropical cyclones mentioned are pretty minor. To make matters worse most of the actual notable storm activity from that period is absent - instead that is in the correct place, regional articles :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An overal sinopsys page is a good way of getting to understand things from 'global' perspective.--86.29.68.35 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but split into single year articles as I previously suggested. Also needs major cleanup to remove all the unencyclopedic language "tragic" etc. An overview without having to know about particular storm types is useful, but a single calendar year is the logical unit. (some southern hemisphere cyclones might end up getting covered in two adjacent articles, which doesn't matter). dramatic (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kathy Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual who has appeared in a very small part in a single comedy show. Contested prod. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It was a BLP prod, whose removal should have been reverted, given that no real source came up. The one source used in the article is a list of search engine results with no mention of the subject. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that I really don't think a BLP prod is appropriate, given the non-contentious content of the article and the fact that the BBC is a reliable source (nothing in the article is actually unsourced). It should be deleted for non-notability though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability for WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as waaaay Too Soon . 3 episodes only of one new series[22] fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flash mob bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A form of a flash mob; no references or evidence of notability (or even that it's an established term) since the article was created in 2007. (Incomplete nomination by an unregistered user.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, unsourced, no sign of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it even worth merging? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- -possibly not, especially if no sources turn up. Hairhorn (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No cverage in reliable sources. Merging unsourced, material is problematic. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let The Records Play (Musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. There is no indication of notability in the article. Searches have also failed to produce any evidence of notability: for example, neither "Let The Records Play" Boynton nor "Let The Records Play" Livingston on Google finds anything other than this Wikipedia article. The author of the article has actually stated on the article's talk page that it is intended to promote the musical. The article was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A9, but I declined it because that criterion is for some reason restricted to musical recordings. Otherwise it would have been speedily deleted before now. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean advertise, I meant inform. You can't find anything on google because Madison Boynton or I have never had professional expierience and our show has not yet to been staged, we are currently working on staging the musical. Why is it that Wicked and Rent get their pages? What's different? It's just a musical and the page is informing people about it who want further information. Gabriel Livingston —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete — Lacks GHits and GNEWS to establish notability. Period. ttonyb (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously completely non-notable. --mboverload@ 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be notable yet? It hasn't been staged yet, Ghost The Musical has a Wikipedia page and It doesn't have near as much information as this page does. Plus Ghost hasn't been staged yet! Can we just let this article stay? It is Valid information and will hopefully become notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefyingGravityForGood (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you, the creator of the article, are saying this is a non-notable play? If it's not notable, by definition it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTE. --mboverload@ 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my article up for deletion when there are othe non-notable aricles on here? I think it's notable because 14 Year Olds wrote a full length musical. If That Was Mentioned in the Article, Would it be considered notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefyingGravityForGood (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How long are we going to debate this? Can we please just leave it up, If it flops I MYSELF WILL DELETE THIS ARTICLE! --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This musical has not even been produced anywhere yet! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is being Produced!!! --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y'ALL ARE BITCHES WITH NO LIVES!!!! Sit on Wikipedia all day and just find articles to delete. GO GET SOME FRIENDS!
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Newlygreens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
TV show, podcast and website. Lots of references but which ones demonstrate notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:GNG, no secondary reliable sources [23]. Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment Under their "original" name Green By Design, there does seem to be coverage of the show and website.[24]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. no consensus on whether meets WP:MUSICBIO JForget 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alka Ajith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article clearly looks like a self boasting one with a lot proof-less info's & does look like a fan designed self promoting article .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nomination, and the delete opinion above, do not explain why the sources in the article are inadequate for demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep - she won one reality singing show for kids in Tamil Nadu in one channel. To my knowledge there are atleast three such shows running in Tamil channels. Previous winners of this show (both adult and children formats) have gone nowhere (no record deals, solo albums etc) except performing stage shows /promotional events for the same channel. News coverage dies out after the season is over. But it is not clearly the case here. She has an existing singing career - a 2004 album and professional singing tours --Sodabottle (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a perfect Nomination & sure not the right one , if we keep having articles with less or no info;s then why a set of rules ? .....this article fails notability ...--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- again, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether the article subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, which are based on whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how the sources in the article are insufficient rather than saying "just not notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion in WP needs reliable sources and to be able to meet notability guidelines. This bio article does not meet the notability guidelines that I referred to. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I second you Alan Liefting .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 11:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I added additional citations to articles from The Hindu just now. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Effiproz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability given per WP:GNG, all sources but one are WP:PRIMARY, sole secondary source is a mention that the software exists in a list of C# applications, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an embedded relational database management system written in C# that supports ... application development frameworks.... Sounds like fun, eh? At any rate, there's no indication that this code product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no cooverage in reliable sources to indicate this is a notable database -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per wp:SPAM, no reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It is well established that subguidelines do not overule GNG so if there is substantial coverage then this individual is notable even if they do not meet athlete but match reports and their like do not equate to sufficient coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David McAllister (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played at a fully professional level. No other indications of notability nor could I find significant enough coverage of his football career to meet WP:GNG Dpmuk (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my de-prod. St Patrick's are leading a league in which the majority of teams are professional. If that's good enough for Belgian and Danish players, it's good enough for Irish players. Besides, this player has the distinction of being a season top-scorer for Shelbourne, one of the biggest teams in Ireland. Whilst I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, it stands to reason that if that season is notable, the most notable player of that season is also notable. WFCforLife (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Player does not play in a fully-professional league, so the status as the club as being one of the biggest is irrelevant. As WFCforLife notes, the fact that player articles for other leagues exist in contravention to WP:ATHLETE is also not a reason for keeping it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. My observation is that Wikiproject Football actively breaks WP:ATHLETE when determining which leagues are eligible for inclusion, making an argument based on ATHLETE whilst ignoring the GNG null and void. WFCforLife (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few examples of meeting the GNG. He has been the source of significant coverage on separate stories in The Independent, RTE and The Irish Examiner. This is not a comprehensive list, merely a demonstration that he has been the subject of significant coverage on multiple stories. Should this AfD close as keep, I will work these into the article. WFCforLife (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Routine sport coverage - these are all match reports - is not significant coverage; see WP:NTEMP, 2nd paragraph. If you can find a few biographical-type articles on the other hand, that ought satisfy WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a biography would be a stronger claim
, and I'll have a look later. But at the very least, the RTE article provides critical analysis of the event. It is more than routine sports coverage, and the coverage of McAllister in that (and the Independent) is certainly non-trivial. WFCforLife (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a biography would be a stronger claim
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In addition to information already in the article (being in the Team of the year, top scorer for the biggest club in Ireland, and a nominee for player of the year) I have already demonstrated how this athlete has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in third party sources. Also, nobody has explained why ATHLETE is pivotal here. To put it another way, nobody has explained why ATHLETE somehow makes the GNG irrelevant. This is only an essay, but it makes a mockery of a cursory "Delete per WP:ATHLETE". Malcolmx15 has correctly made the point that biographies would provide a stronger GNG argument, but nobody has refuted any of the evidence I have provided that he passes the GNG.
- To be clear, I'm not bothered about this individual. What does bother me is the arbitrary way that WP:ATHLETE is used as an automatic rationale for deletion, with no consideration whatsoever given to the individual's general notability. Even if the final judgement of this AfD is that this guy does not meet general notability standards, I am looking to generate discussion so as to provide clarity in the future. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My rationale as nominator including the statement that I didn't think the player meets the WP:GNG. If a athlete meets WP:ATHLETE then it is assumed their notable, however the opposite does not hold true, they may be notable even if they don't meet WP:ATHLETE. I stated that they did not meet WP:ATHLETE as I think it's useful to establish that in this sort of discussion. Looking at the sources in more details:
- 3 of the sources plus the two external links are not independent so can not be used to assess notability.
- 3 of the sources in the article plus the three raised above are just match reports. This is coverage of the match not the individual and mentions of the individual, are in my opinion completely trivial, in one of the references in the article he's purely mentioned as having played, in another it merely mentions he scored and in the third it mentions that he got a yellow and how he got it. Coverage is of a similar level in those sources mentioned in this discussion.
- The final source mentions he's got nominated for an award. The coverage again is trivial - it just mentions he's been nominated, no discussion of him what so ever. The award does not seem to be even close to being of significant prominence that just being nominated was enough to be notable.
- Hence I don't think he's been the subject of non-trivial coverage and so does not meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the reply. It's that sort of analysis I'm looking for. My hope is to get a clearer idea of what multiple people think a footballer that fails ATHLETE needs to do to pass the GNG. I see this person as potentially above that mark, hence my persistence. But if consensus deems other wise, I'm trying to get a good idea of what the notability threshold would be. WFCforLife (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My rationale as nominator including the statement that I didn't think the player meets the WP:GNG. If a athlete meets WP:ATHLETE then it is assumed their notable, however the opposite does not hold true, they may be notable even if they don't meet WP:ATHLETE. I stated that they did not meet WP:ATHLETE as I think it's useful to establish that in this sort of discussion. Looking at the sources in more details:
- Keep - May not satisfy [[WP::ATHLETE]], but does satisfy WP:GNG. The articles go beyond cursory mentions and are certainly reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources fail WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG, they are trivial stories and run of the mill reports etc. --Jimbo[online] 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable as well articulated by nominator in detail a couple of entries (unsigned User:Dpmuk) above. Nothing but match report coverage which is "routine sports coverage of trivial nature". Has not achieved anything significant or noteworthy in his field.--ClubOranjeT 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody has challenged my assertion that the RTE article (above) is critical analysis of the event. My argument isn't that it's not a match report, but that it (and more importantly its coverage of McAllister) is not routine. The weight of numbers suggest that most people think this article is a good candidate for deletion, and provided the numbers are backed up with strong arguments, I'm happy to accept that. But I do think there needs to be a more discussion on this point. Regards, WFC (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This RTE article? It is simply a routine match report. Critical analysis or not, it does nothing to elevate this game or its participants to encyclopaedic status as part of enduring history. I can pull one of those out of every paper in the country about the local teams, and multiple teams in the bigger cities, from top level to local league stuff.--ClubOranjeT 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With respect to meeting general notability guidelines, I do not see that any of the coverage rises beyond typical match reports, and that includes the RTE article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plays in a notable top-level league, a number of sources provided. Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has yet to play at a fully professional level, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. The sources provided seem rather trivial, comprising brief mentions in match reports, a club "newsflash" and sports stories - none of these are sufficient to establish notability. Bettia (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Precedent was set when it was decided to keep David O'Connor (footballer). Both are playing in a top level league that is mainly professional. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are only three professional teams in Ireland, so he fails WP:ATHLETE by a long shot. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for keeping this article. Bettia (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OSE states that you should not base an argument on the principle of "that exists, this should also exist." However, citing valid, relevant arguments from a previous AfD is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, WFC (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The coverage isn't significant enough to outweigh the clear failure to meet WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Slough. merging to slough unless someone wants to create Schools in Slough which be a better merge target Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Priory School (Slough) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet the WP:ORG guidelines and has been marked for merge for two years. There appears to be little likelihood for notability being addressed in the near future. Primary schools are not an exception to the notability requirements. Fæ (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all primary schools in Berkshire articles into a single article, something like Schools in Berkshire. If this is not an option, then Merge this article to Slough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Slough or school district article per WP:OUTCOMES#education. However, the article sounds almost like an advertisement, and only one or two sentences really warrant merger. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 11:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Slough or an article on Schools in Slough. We do not have article on School Districts in UK as the Education Authority is always a multi-purpose local authority. If Berkshire CC is the Education Authority and articel on all its schools would need to be split by district, so that I cannot support Chris Neville-Smith. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Biratnagar Plane Hijack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced; copyedit; expand; npov; peacock; toofewopinions; contested PROD — Jeff G. ツ 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources).Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Easy Keep It did happen as described and was reported even in the United States [25], where news from Nepal is generally ignored. Although I had never heard of this, the rest of the world certainly has [26], which is not surprising. Generally, one would consider a hijacking that netted $400,000 ransom to be notable whether it happened yesterday in the U.S. or in 1973 in Nepal. Mandsford 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve by rewriting based on the available sources - which, as demonstrated by Mandsford, are enough to pass WP:GNG). Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I am somewhat surprised that there are not more sources covering this in-depth, but I just may not know the right search terms. I did find one detailed account on pages 4-5 of this Buddha Air pdf. Another report here: [27]. Location (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The event got a significant AP story that was published widely. What more do you want? Zachlipton (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article should be moved, to a better name. The current name has no search results. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that "1973 Nepal hijacking" would work better. So many times, the "official" title is not the one that ordinary folks like I would think of looking. For instance, if you're looking for an article about a bad earthquake that collapsed bridges in San Francisco around 20 years ago, it would be hard to find it. If you happen to know already that it was called the "1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", then you probably don't need to look it up on Wikipedia in the first place. Mandsford 12:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Green Spark Plug Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A online retailer of sparkplugs and vehicle electrics, tagged for non-notability and unreferenced for over 6 months with no improvement. I cannot see how this is anything other than advertising and propose it be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Policy still applies, and policy does not support deleting articles on retailers merely for being commercial. Nor should we delete an article because the retailer is too small - that leads to a whole subjective quagmire of edit-warring over just where the cut-off would be. However we do still depend on WP:N, and the principle of coverage by independent sources, which this article is lacking. If Practical Classics (magazine) or Classic Tractor were to mention them to the slightest level, I wouldn't have a problem with this article. As it is though, I can't justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can not find any sources that help to establish notability. I could not find any news hits and the web hits are forum discussions about the company. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is about an online business that sells spark plugs. No indication of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdraw GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surrey United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article only has a single source, which is the official website of the team, and a google search suggests that this is for good reason; I've been unable to find any indication of notability: the article fails WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Prior to it leaving the league in 2010, Surrey United was one of Canada's premier semi-professional soccer teams with a long history of competing in the Pacific Coast Soccer League, one of the premier semi-professional leagues in North America (roughly on a par with equivalent leagues such as the Blue Square Premier in England - in terms of national status, not quality of play). Deleting this article would create a discrepancy with other teams which competed at the fourth level of the Amerian Soccer Pyramid (the other leagues at this level being the USL Premier Development League and the National Premier Soccer League; admittedly, the article needs work, but there are only a few of us working on minor league soccer teams in North America, and to get everything up to par takes time. It would be better to leave it in place, but add templates for improvement, rather than deleting it outright. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all very well using terms like "premier", but presumably if they were a "premier" team competing in such a prestigious league, there would be some mention of them in reliable sources; the presence of reliable sources demonstrating notability is a requirement per WP:GNG. If you can find reliable sources I'll consider withdrawing the nomination, but I found little more than their own website on a google search. Perhaps there are some Canadian newspaper articles someone could dig up to demonstrate notability? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JonBroxton. I live in Vancouver and have never even heard of this team, but JB has demonstrated notability. GiantSnowman 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination per references now satisfying WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Kinloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I hate to be the bad guy here. Mr Kinloch was young and brave and his loss was a tragedy. But we do not host memorials. Is Mr Kinloch notable? No he is not. He was a motivational speaker, but many people have professions, motivational speaker being one. He was an accomplished mountain climber, but many people are accomplished at this endeavor. About 275 people have achieved the Seven Summits; Mr Kinloch was not one of them (although he probably would have been had he lived).
His one claim to notability, in my view, is that his death was reported somewhat in the media, so there are secondary sources for that I suppose, although there don't seem to be any good ones in the article. However, this was a one-day wonder, and does not make him notable. His end was tragic and heartrending but it was not especially unusual (for mountaineers). Over 200 people have died on Everest. Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Perhaps there should be a section "Mountaineers" at WP:SPORT, which would give us a better idea of where this person fits, but right now there isn't. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not suff. notable as a mountaineer. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed that there should be a section "Mountaineers/Climbers" at WP:SPORT, but I doubt Kinlock would qualify Vartanza (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's sad, but not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kyungbin kang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, maybe even a hoax. After a thorough google search, I can find no mention of a goalkeeper named Kyungbin Kang anywhere, and certainly not in relation to Surrey United soccer team, which itself seems non-notable (notability was established by collecting some difficult-to-find sources when I took it to AfD, but I still see nothing supporting this article's notability or verifiability). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Givent the lack of both professional appearances and significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - possible hoax, unverifiable as the club it is claimed he plays for is so low-level they do not even have squad list on their own website. No coverage whatsoever found. No references. --ClubOranjeT 11:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uma Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AFAIS, this fails WP:N Arjuncodename024 06:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently she got the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, which AFAICT would qualify her under criterion 2 as an WP:ACADEMIC.—msh210℠ 07:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination. Arjuncodename024 12:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The recent trend has been to delete unsourced BLPs and this is a cleatly barely notable individual where there is not much in the way of sourcing. There are two applicable guidelines, GNG and ATHLETE as well as a local consensus on a wikiproject that does not have wide consensus. In the heirarchy of guidelines N/GNG is senior to ATHLETE and what we have remains essentially an unsourced BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neil Wain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fighter. Fought 1 fight for a major production and was knocked out in 90 seconds, then didn't fight again for 15+ months. Clearly not "fully professional" so he fails WP:ATH. More importantly, he fails the MMA fighter notability criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he clearly is fully professional, considering he's got a professional record, so I'd be careful about choice of words here. Has also fought once at the VERY top level. Whether he got KOd in a certain amount of time is irrelevant, as he still competed in the UFC. Has also fought a notable in Broughton and is still fighting now, where he's progressed to the next round of the Abu Dhabi tournament. However, a strict reading of WP:MMANOT fails him. Taking all of that into account, I'm going with neutral, leaning towards keep. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IMO, a handful of fights, only one of which is in a notable promotion doesn't qualify as fully professional. (Professional yes, not fully.) Google search is a repetition of fighter profiles/records and stories about his one UFC fight. Not notable, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk)
- My own view on this phrase is that you're either professional or you're not. I don't think there's levels. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I once played disc golf at a tournament in a professional division (as opposed to an amateur division). Therefore, you would consider me a professional disc golf player. However, I made little money and didn't make a living at it. Therefore, I wouldn't be a fully professional disc golf player. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Professional should not just be the level, but also how if they make their living out of it. Also a this was also an under-card/peliminary fight (even though it was aired) so agian leaning towards not TOP level, i.e. main card, v few fighers have only one appearnce and that's main card unless they already fought in other high level promotions (pride/dream/strike force) before coming to the UFC. --Natet/c 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I once played disc golf at a tournament in a professional division (as opposed to an amateur division). Therefore, you would consider me a professional disc golf player. However, I made little money and didn't make a living at it. Therefore, I wouldn't be a fully professional disc golf player. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My own view on this phrase is that you're either professional or you're not. I don't think there's levels. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He competed at the top level of his sport, which I feel meets WP:ATH. A baseball player that makes one major league start is notable, so is a fighter who has one fight at the top level. Movementarian (Talk) 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete; one source and the only info is his record. Skating on the boarder of notability due to opponents only. The lack of sources mean it has little potential for improvement beyond just his record. --Natet/c 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He fails the notability criteria at MMA notability. What would happen if he was a major league baseball player is irrelevant. He also doesn't meet WP:Ath. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it is important to remember that WP:MMANOT is not policy and not absolute. Your assertion that he fails WP:ATH is incorrect. He fought in one fight at the fully professional level, ergo he competed at the fully professional level, ergo he qualifies under point no. 1. Movementarian (Talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would claim (and have before) that "fully professional" means you're making a living at it. By that criteria, he's never been fully professional. This discussion as well as the ones for WP:MMANOT have taken place at the topic's talk page. You're right that it's not absolute, but it does reflect the consensus of those most interested (and familiar) with the topic. I've been paid for things I've written, but I don't consider myself a professional writer. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have is financials available, so I can't speak to whether he is solely supported by fighting. I take it to mean an appearance at the top level, which he has done. I'll admit this is a weak case, but some parity should be achieved for sports related bios. Competing, however briefly, at the top level is pretty standard across the board. I see no reason why that shouldn't be applied here. Movementarian (Talk) 05:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he went over 15 months without fighting, I'd say it was safe to say it wasn't his livelihood. As far as being consistent, the criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) says "Olympic medalist" or "Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations". That seems a bit more than having one fight, so he doesn't meet the criteria for MMA fighters or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I was trying to be funny with the financials comment. The WP:MANOTE seems more in keeping with the general guideline for amateur sport. I think this one could be argued either way. Going back to baseball, anyone that appears in the MLB gets in. I'll admit it is a low bar, but it isn't like we are running out of space. Movementarian (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I enjoyed the financials comment. FYI--My experience is that most martial arts competitions don't differentiate between amateur and professional. There's generally prize money at even the smallest events. That's why the real criteria is competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just making sure I didn't offend. Sometimes jokes don't travel well through cyberspace. I see where you are coming from and I think our disagreement really comes down to the word "compete". I see the intent as including anyone that has appeared at the top level of their sport. I would like to see this addressed in a wider forum at WP:NSPORTS. Two of us going back and forth isn't exactly creating consensus. Movementarian (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two thoughts, Baseball is (I will grugingly admit) more popular than MMA (for now...) so the same bar is not as relevant; that said I also think that the bar for many sports of 'play 10 minutes as a substitute' at pro level is way too low. --Natet/c 10:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I don't think the popularity of a sport has anything to do with notability. The bar for athletes is low, but this guy meets WP:ATH. Movementarian (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two thoughts, Baseball is (I will grugingly admit) more popular than MMA (for now...) so the same bar is not as relevant; that said I also think that the bar for many sports of 'play 10 minutes as a substitute' at pro level is way too low. --Natet/c 10:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just making sure I didn't offend. Sometimes jokes don't travel well through cyberspace. I see where you are coming from and I think our disagreement really comes down to the word "compete". I see the intent as including anyone that has appeared at the top level of their sport. I would like to see this addressed in a wider forum at WP:NSPORTS. Two of us going back and forth isn't exactly creating consensus. Movementarian (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I enjoyed the financials comment. FYI--My experience is that most martial arts competitions don't differentiate between amateur and professional. There's generally prize money at even the smallest events. That's why the real criteria is competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I was trying to be funny with the financials comment. The WP:MANOTE seems more in keeping with the general guideline for amateur sport. I think this one could be argued either way. Going back to baseball, anyone that appears in the MLB gets in. I'll admit it is a low bar, but it isn't like we are running out of space. Movementarian (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he went over 15 months without fighting, I'd say it was safe to say it wasn't his livelihood. As far as being consistent, the criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) says "Olympic medalist" or "Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations". That seems a bit more than having one fight, so he doesn't meet the criteria for MMA fighters or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have is financials available, so I can't speak to whether he is solely supported by fighting. I take it to mean an appearance at the top level, which he has done. I'll admit this is a weak case, but some parity should be achieved for sports related bios. Competing, however briefly, at the top level is pretty standard across the board. I see no reason why that shouldn't be applied here. Movementarian (Talk) 05:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE as the subject fought at the highest level of his sport. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The discussion at WP:NSPORT convinces me that the standards of the people involved with the particular sport should carry more weight and the WP:ATH is too vague. Therefore, I defer to WP:MMANOT and vote delete. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted (CSD G12) by Anthony.bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith talk 03:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Areiki or Sampoorna Jeevasakthi Chikitsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced and less than understandable. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam / copyvio. See this source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. The article has been speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyvio of a webpage per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thapovanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be WP:OR and is completely unsourced. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 04:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mumbo-jumbo. Hairhorn (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one of several mumbo-jumbo articles by the same editor. Eeekster (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a copyright violation of this. I've tagged the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan Thilak Karate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom: This should qualify as A7 but Malik Shabazz asserted that A7 does not apply to schools. While this is true for traditional schools, that only applies to traditional educational associations. Indeed the reasons for such a policy were related to this. It's a hyper technical, and I believe wrong, reading of A7 to assert that any organization that labels itself "school" is exempt from A7 (specifically db-org).
There is no indication of notability here, and no sourcing to indicate as such. Google search turns up what I think is the organization's website, the wiki article, and then a yellow pages listing. Shadowjams (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After good faith media search, I have been unable to identify any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A7 should, in fact, apply as this is not a "school" in the sense intended by the restriction, failing which A4 is certainly applicable. But here we are anyway. Bongomatic 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was not able to find any significant coverage of this school to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MANOTE 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Philips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Merely a candidate. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is extremely unlikely that he will beat Chris Van Hollen, chair of the DCCC and a safe incumbent. This is a sacrificial lamb and this inherently non-notable. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Considering his party, he is more of a redshirt. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesFZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesJK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesLA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesLI-2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesQR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSA-SE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSE-SL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesCA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It has been over three years since the last discussion on these lists, which I think merit another look. Last time around, the discussion centered on these articles' usefulness as a "field guide," but Wikipedia is not a guide. It also seems to be an abuse of the gallery script, see WP:IG. Many species are represented more than once with multiple images. The worst problem appears to be a complete lack of references that these species occur in the area claimed. This is something we usually take care of with categories, e.g. Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region Rkitko (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikimedia Commons, or if already there, delete all, this article was tagged to be copied there. These dont appear to be encyclopedia articles, and i dont think they could be turned into such without renaming and restructuring entirely. no refs doesnt help. some of the target articles dont indicate this is in the plants precise range, so not accurate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue against page transwiki to Commons. As far as I can tell, all the images are already on Commons, but the galleries would need a slash-and-burn before any transwiki. Like I said above, the same plant is often represented by multiple images, but most worrying is that the Lower Colorado River Valley is a poorly-defined geographical area. These plants may occur in the vicinity. I think it would be much easier if someone, working from a WP:RS, would start anew on a single gallery at Commons where each species only had one picture. I don't think these galleries would be any help in that effort as one could easily just search for the species again on Commons, making better choices than those in these pages. Rkitko (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Image galleries belong on Commons and these images are already categorized over there. Resolute 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia pages should not be "Mere collections of photographs or media files". In my opinion these pages have insufficient encyclopaedic context to be suitable for the project; as has been said above, Commons would be a more appropriate location. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images. Tavix | Talk 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as image galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this. I found the source for the life peer appointment: [28] DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shireen Ritchie, Baroness Ritchie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local councilor, no reason to think notable. A few non-substantial sources [29] DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep By long-standing convention here, members of the UK Baronetcy, even life-peers, are inherently notable. This is is a misguided application and should be withdrawn. Rodhullandemu 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (edit conflict) She's a recently appointed member of the national legislature of the United Kingdom. We routinely allow creations of new articles for national politicians to stand despite a dearth of information upon their joining the institution, whether by election or appointment (for example with this body, the House of Lords, and the Canadian Senate). -Rrius (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - Nominations for deletion coming the same day the subject was appointed to the House of Lords are unlikely to be successful.Minnowtaur (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm a little puzzled here: UK baronets are not necessarily notable, nor are they peers, nor are they members of parliament and they never were. Is she a baronet, or a life peer? I'm looking for the source for her actually being a life peer. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I have found and added a number of factoids that I think together are the equivilent of "more than passing" coverage. In particular, she seems to have been one of the movers and shakers in the conservative party regarding women candidates. Active Banana (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "factoids" are pretty much a synonym for non-significant coverage DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ABCT Couples Special Interest Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subunit of a notable organization, but not independently notable; should be merged to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies per WP:CLUB. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A similar AfD discussion was recently held about another subunit of the ABCT, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group, and the result was "redirect to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies". I agreed with that decision, based on WP:CLUB, which states that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." So I redirected the Couples group article to the ABCT article as well; however, my redirect was contested so I am bringing it here for discussion.
- An editor has been adding references to try to demonstrate notability, so I invite readers to evaluate them. My own analysis is that they are either self-referential, or else have little or nothing to do with the interest group; also, note that the article credited to the New York Times is actually to a Times blog. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage about this special interest group. All but the NY Times are unreliable sources. The NY Times item, although a blog, is still within the editorial framework of the NY Times and as such, is a reliable source; however, the article makes no mention whatsoever of this special interest group. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Kou Fumizuki. Notability is not inherited. Spartaz Humbug! 05:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umi no Misaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed proposed deletion, my WP:BEFORE only turns up a couple of comic rankings, which do not assist the article in proving the topic meets WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since 2007 has been published in a notable magazine that has a circulation of 190,000. No magazine is going to review a rival magazine's manga, so you can't get any coverage of most things. Dream Focus 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why most manga reviews are in magazines that don't run manga themselves (and there are quite a few magazines that do this). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of numbers See: WP: BIGNUMBER, and Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DF. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 08:10 2 July 2010 (GMT)
- Keep This is the current manga by Kou Fumizuki, the creator of the very successful Ai Yori Aoshi. It is most definitely notable. Marshall Stax (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Fumizuki "so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable", or that his "life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes"? (WP:BK#5). That seems to be the only case in which a work can inherit notability from an author. --Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Malkinann, You forgot to mention you added this to the list:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 09:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the note is common practice and could be considered a courtesy to other editors, but it is by no means required. If a discussion is added to a deletion list but the addition is not pointed out, and it bothers you, please feel free to add the note yourself, but there is no reason to specifically draw attention to it. 「ダイノガイ千?!」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you DreamFocus, I forgot. --Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough evidence of Notability found. Fail WP:N & WP:BK. No licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. All i found is a licensor for Taiwan. I should repeat myself notability can't be inherited from the magazine to the Manga especially since there are over 20 manga serialized in the same magazine. Notability can't be inherited from its author save in very rare circumstances which the author doesn't meet at all. Keeping it based on shallow, unrecognized and "i like it" arguments will just give this article reprieve not guarantying that this article will be back to AfD for one more round. --KrebMarkt 09:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I love Kou Fumizuki's work, this one just isnt notable, not everything can be hits, just look at some of the non-notable works by the creator of Sailor moon. Since this manga is ongoing it might attract notability over time and the article could always be recreated later but for now it is a delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kou Fumizuki keeping article history in case the series becomes notable later on. Currently it fails Wikipedia's general and book inclusion guidelines and has received no significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work nor is the author of such historical or cultural significances that all of their works are are subject of study and scholarship. —Farix (t | c) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Farix's arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Theoretical notability based on a number of major publications isn't enough when the article is fundamentally unsourceable. ~ mazca talk 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen Fredricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography without any third party sources. Has authored a number of books, but I don't see any indication that they have received much attention. Leivick (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. The number of books listed at World Cat Identities and the fact that they are published by a reputable publisher is a positive indication of notability. Being specialist Dummies guides, they are unlikely to attract much in the way of mainstream reviews. There may well be reviews in the specialist press. More problematical for me is that the article has been written by the subject and has a promotional tone. I would suggest stubifying and keeping but I can't say I feel strongly about it. I have just tagged for the computing Project. Perhaps someone over there might take an interest--Plad2 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep' - author of a dozen how-to guides in a popular series. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The number of books i9n a major series from a major publisher is notability enough. I removed the advertising for her and her company. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No third-party sources, only authored a few books of notability, she is not notable as an author and has not received any acclamation or praise for her works. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete This is an unsourced BLP. This requires sources. Since there appear to be none this must be deleted as BLP is a policy and trumps AUTHOR. Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all articles must be supported by independent, reliable sources of which there are currently none in the article, nor have any been mentioned in this discussion. The 'Keep' "votes" above argue that she is notable based on her writing even in the absence of sources covering her. In another context it may make sense to use such heuristics as firm notability rules, but given that the article is a BLP I can't see keeping it in the absence of sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO, and we can't keep a BLP without sources. Claritas § 09:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. no consensus for deletion after 3 weeks JForget 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SA TrackWorks Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
vanispamcruftisement Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't know what "vanispamcruftisement" means. I have added the Canada banner adding it to 4 relevant projects. Maybe the Vancouver project could help seeing as it is a Vancouver company? The article needs to be wikified and categorised properly. Argolin (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. While this article is not technically a BLP it appears to be a WP:COATRACK article to talk about living people. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtual Bridges VERDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Few or no reliable sources appear to exist for this product, which has been repeatedly spammed added at Desktop virtualization and previously existed at Virtual Bridges. Original article was speedied, but the sole author removed the proposed deletion on this recreated article (which may not be a candidate for speedy deletion due to the fact that it focusses on the product, rather than the company itself). My hope is a clear consensus one way or another can prevent the circular pattern in the future. jæs (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly spam and no notability. Haakon (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Delete. Virtualization is an extremely hot topic. From the article's references I suspect that a few additional and notable references may exist so let's give the author some more time to improve it. The fact that it was previously deleted for various reasons do little justice to the truth. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not finding significant independent coverage in reliable sources for this product. The references in the article are from technology analysys companies. I'm not familiar with these specific companies, but I suspect that they operate similar to Gartner in that subject coverage is highly absed on whatever their customers happen to inquire about. My own searches turn up only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred Haeseker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article fail to establish notability for the subject as they are written by the subject. Further, I can find no third party reliable sources that establish notability. Pinkadelica♣ 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep We have normally regarded being included in an anthology as a major factor in notability for a writer.This single one seems adequate DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "We have normally regarded...". Yikes! Turn off the Kagan hearings. Wikipedia is not a court, we don't do precedents, and thank God for that because judges notoriously pick whatever precedents suit their desired end. Forget anthologies; how's this for a precedent? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistency is not a virtue, but a sign of immaturity. We don't follow precedents in the exact sense the anglo-american legal system does; we do establish our practices through custom as well as formal rule-making. What we consistently do amounts to a guideline. Needless to dsay, we can change it if we chave agreement to do so, as with any guideline or policy. Inclusion in an anthology is essentially the rough equivalent of the more formal WP:CREATIVE guidelines that are worded to apply to visual artists: b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Love & Death (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - For the 500th time the nominator should look at WP:JNN. Regardless, this album could be better described as a counterfeit item that was probably made by crooks who don't even know where the songs came from and who's on them. With an artist as important as Nirvana, the presence of supposedly rare recordings on this product should have generated real media and fan response, but it hasn't. I can find no coverage of the album's existence beyond some blogs that appear to cater to a crooked crowd. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summer Demos 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, released album by notable artist. Nominator misstates WP:MUSIC, which refers quite specifically to "unreleased demos." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - the article needs more proof of notability but here the nominator has AGAIN given us a careless AfD without the proper WP:BEFORE investigation and apparently without even reading the text of the article. WP:JNN is another guideline that has been carelessly neglected here. We can assume this nomination is based on nothing more than the fact that "Demo" is in the title of the album. I can find nothing in WP:NMUSIC about something being non-notable just because it is a self-released album. This article might actually be deletable but I am steadfastly against careless and unsupported nominations. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Michig makes a plausable argument for inclusion but unfortunately one !vote is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sluts of Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marginal notability at most--a Peel session, playing South by Southwest--and unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They recorded a Peel session in 2004 and had two tracks voted into the end of year Festive 50 chart.[30]. Their album received several reviews.PopMatters, Dusted, Ink19 Further coverage in the tripwire, Billboard, SPIN, Morning Call, Sunday Mail, Glasgow Herald. See also the Press page on their website which samples other coverage, much of which is not available online. I also searched the News UK archive which gives far more comprehensive UK news results than Google News. Coverage includes "TODAY EDINBURGH TOMORROW THE WORLD ; Sluts of Trust duo launch Olum's bid to be Europe's hip club" (Daily Record, substantial article about the band), "Singles and Albums: Album of the week" (Daily Record, brief album review), "POP: SINGLE OF THE WEEK" (The Independent, review of "Leave You Wanting More" which they awarded Single of the Week), "OMM: and the rest: new releases" (The Observer, brief album review), "Brave chart" (The Sun, profiles of several Scottish bands, including Sluts of Trust), "SLUTS OF TRUST We Are All Sluts of Trust" (The Times, more substantial album review), "Leer pressure pays off" (The Scotsman, substantial feature), "Proud to be so loud; Scots duo A hit at the hut" (Evening Times (Glasgow), substantial feature). Notability is clear.--Michig (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've started tidying up the article and adding sources. I'm probably only about 20% through this but it should be obvious to even the most rabid deletionist that notability is clear.--Michig (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Pretty much there now. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Hell 'n' Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redlink artist. {{db-album}} was declined. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep or Redirect to a newly created article for artist. Its tricky trying to find sources online because the band are from pre-internet days. However, I found this from Spin, this review of the album and this press release which says they were to release an album on Alternative Tentacles which is a notable record label, albeit a small one. They do have an allmusic page too for what thats worth Maybe someone with access to offline sources can come up with enough stuff to meet the requirements. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The album fails WP:NALBUMS. The speedy deletion should not have been declined since the song meets the two criteria of "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist." Aspects (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If a music act is non-notable, it just follows that albums by them are equally non-notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (without prejudice) - I wonder if anyone has ever tried to create an article for the band. (There is an article for the Australian town of the same name.) If not, we can't really say they're not notable. But for procedural reasons, a band article should pass the test of notability, and then it will be time to talk about the albums. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Freeman (PA Announcer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a sports PA announcer and does not appear to meet notability requrements. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article follows template used in other sports PA announcers. What notability requirements are not met?Gamedaynyc (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor-league players tend not to be notable, and the PA announcer for them even less so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Antony Oldknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable writer. A search of Google news archives brings up only trivial passing mentions, nothing of any depth or detail. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's nothing in the article that would indicate he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC, and I found no evidence from Google News, Books or Scholar. Qwfp (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NEi Nastran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference sources have now been added for verification and to qualify notability; POV content has been removed. The number of external links has been reduced to comply with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Teidukonis (talk) 1:15, 8 July 2010 (PDT)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Parasolid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable in having several book sources [31] [32][33][34][35]. The article also has a reference to an external RS, namely [36]. The article needs editing and improving, not deletion, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 21:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google scholar gets nearly 1,750 hits for this software (or for its associated file format), from a wide range of sources and fields, including many from refereed journals. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abaqus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing more than advertising. Tootitnbootit (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This doesn't read like advertising to me and notability can be determined by many books and news articles listed by google. --Karnesky (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google scholar gets nearly 50,000 hits for this software (even if most of those are just to its documentation) from a reasonable range of fields and mostly from refereed journals. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Are you kidding? Delete Abaqus? It is a very notable subject and its notability can be easily established. I cannot find a mechanical engineering journal which has not named this software. Instead of going through the pain of nominating this article for deletion, establish its notability that's too easy. In fact, I'll get to it, now. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google news search at the top of the AFD. I'll list the first three results
Dassault Systemes to acquire Abaqus Inc for 413 mln usd cash - Forbes - May 17, 2005
Company notable enough to be sold for 413 million dollars in US cash, and for the sale of it to be mentioned in Forbes.
Announces New Multiphysics Technology in Abaqus Release 6.10 - Wall Street Journal - May 24, 2010
The Wall Street Journal talks about a new release of it.
STAR-CCM+ and Abaqus Co-Simulation Makes Seamless Fluid-Structure - msnbc.com - May 25, 2010
MSNBC seems to find it notable enough to talk about. And there are others of course. Plus Google books shows results. [37]
- Comment: MSNBC link is dead but don't worry: There are a lot of web site that have reported the same news with same title. Fleet Command (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Romeo Miller. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Patience Is A Virtue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable mixtape, the download site looks like a copyright violating site. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 05:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Is this a vanity page of sorts? Google News isn't pulling up anything substantial or relevant. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fail WP:GNG (no reliable third party sources) and WP:BAND. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band comprises members of other notable bands and has been the subject of plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Google News shows coverage from Dallas Morning News, MTV, Houston Press and more. Add to this PopMatters and Allmusic, and notability cannot seriously be questioned. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've detailed the coverage I found (26 articles) at Talk:Burden_Brothers#Sources - all found using Google it should be noted, most from Google News.--Michig (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For Beginners, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Queried AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator offers no reason for deletion. If he is alleging non-notability, it looks notable to me. The article provides many links to reviews of this book series in Reliable Sources like the Boston Globe and the Village Voice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As suggested on the talk page, the article might be better titled after the book series rather than the company. It is the books which are notable; in fact, the books predate the company. Could move to For Beginners (books) or For Beginners (book series), something along those lines. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is no apparent reason for deletion. The article is somewhat sound and there are a few reliable references. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi-Fi Indios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable music group. Appearance in little shows does not mean general notability. No news references or magazine article/s cited as a proof of notability. JL 09 q?c 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unfortunately I could not find enough references for this article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article had no deletion tag on it; I added it just now. The discussion might therefore benefit from extra time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could find no sources that would help to support WP:N notability of this band, neither in Google News archives, nor in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The AFD tag was not added to the article until 30 June. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete insufficient coverage to build a decent article. "The group has appeared in television shows like Breakfast @ Studio 23, Umagang Kay Ganda (ABS-CBN 2), Sobrang Gud Nyt Show with Jojo A. (QTV-11, RJTV), Lyn Sherman Show (RJTV), Rock Republik (Flip TV), MYX Daily Top Ten and Star MYX", seems like notability, but I have been unable to find any of it to use, or even verify that it happened. extransit (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets Talk Tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band, have only self released one demo EP. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 12:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable sources found; fails WP:MUS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guoguo12 (talk • contribs)
- Delete. No significant coverage found. The references simply provide evidence that the band have played live several times and had a song played on the radio once. --Michig (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.