Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 12

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to For the Masses (Hadouken! album). v/r - T P 23:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Is Falling[edit]

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

Prodded as unreferenced and non-notable. Prod removed with one reference added which confirms the song has actually been played on the radio once. Still fails WP:NSONG Richhoncho (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Article is now properly cited. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two primary sources and one ad doesn't make for good references, please see WP:NSONG, I can't see one point at which this song passes anything under the guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four sources... 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 23:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but none that establishes notability under WP:NSONG. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to For the Masses (Hadouken! album). References currently in article are not enough, the song may be mentioned in reviews of the album but not much has been written about the song (from what I could find via Google, which is probably the best place to look as it's a recent song). Peter E. James (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For the Masses (Hadouken! album). Inadequate independent sourcing for subject to meet NSONG. Yahoo also fails to provide requisite sourcing. Better to redirect until GNG or NSONG is met. BusterD (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy Park[edit]

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

Lokal estate without no other claim to notability than age (1940's) and high crime rate. Not enough, to my opinion Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Housing estates are usually held not to be notable unless there are good reasons otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - housing estates are not inherently notable. No notability asserted nor inferred from article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS (no sources at all), WP:OR (a reasonable presumption given the total lack of sources), and WP:GNG. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notabale area. Why is there not AfD notice on the article? I'll add one now. Snappy (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some strange hiccup of Twinkle that did make this page, but nothing else. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jolt Cola. Courcelles 23:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt gum[edit]

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

Barely meets WP:GNG, but the 15 minutes of fame from the school suspension does not create an encyclopedic need to have sales coatracking about this otherwise non-notable commercial product. causa sui (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jolt Cola. It's on the fence as I can't find much in the way of sources, but there's no reason to deny it a mention on the Jolt Cola page since it's a derivative product. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I confer with 10# & his critters, this should be part of Jolt cola. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found one additional reference, which I added, but it doesn't really expand the story any. Merge one paragraph worth, delete the garbage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Denkovich[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any evidence that this player meets any of the relevant notability criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Also last name may be be "Denkohiv" MadCow257 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence can be found to verify the claims that this player actually played a professional match for Red Star Belgrade; if once can be found, then he would be notable. PS Name is also spelt 'Denkovic' according to this. Giant Snowman 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Red Star stats are false. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should probably be named as Stefan Denković per UEFA profile which verifies he was U-19 Montenegran rep, but youth appearances do not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to have played for Red Star Belgrade U-19 before transferring to FK Sopot Belgrad (or Beograd) (who don't yet have a Wikipedia page themselves) according to the not so very reliable TransferMarkt site and this site. this IMscouting page is the only reference I can find he moved to Haifa, but no evidence it is true or that he has actually played for them. has not played football at a notable level.--ClubOranje^T 10:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps. listed as Stefan Denković in List of foreign players in Serbian lower football leagues. --ClubOranje^T 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. to wiktionary (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nyctohylophobia[edit]

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

Nothing more than a citation less dicdef. A dicdef of a word that I can find no MEDRS references to. AFD result in 09 was to keep, but no progress in 2 yr. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transwiki per below. This is nothing more than a dictionary entry and I haven't even found it in any dictionary yet (besides Urbandictionary, which really shouldn't be a reliable source for anything, much less WP.) Several Times (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the sources provided by Cullen328 are helpful, but without content beyond a definition of the term (i.e., related phobias, known connections to specific medical conditions, or known mentions of the phobia in culture) it's still just a dictionary definition and I'd support a transwiki.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki To Wiktionary That's where this really belongs. I have no doubt that it's a real phobia, but it just does not belong on Wikipedia. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure how much coverage a phobia needs in order to be on Wikipedia as opposed to Wictionary, but I found this reference. There's more coverage here. I'm open to being convinced that this coverage is insufficient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source by professor Vogt makes a good case for the fact that once again Wikipedia writers have concentrated more upon writing up every word ending in -phobia and less upon giving us an encyclopaedia article on the single encyclopaedia subject that both nyctohylophobia and hylophobia are parts of. That subject's ordinary English name is, of course, fear of forests, and of course it is a redlink. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - based on the second ref mentioned by Cullen328. Article needs work, but I see no WP:Deadline for it to be done by. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Hylophobia as is usually done. Also redirect fear of forests, to the same, which I can do if I feel bold. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Dictionary dictionary definition Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villyan Bijev[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria under WP:NFOOTY at present as not played for first team in competitive league/ cup competition in professional league. Also fails WP:GNG. Recreate if/ when becomes notable or meets GNG Zanoni (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, recreate if and when he make his pro debut. Giant Snowman 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage and has not played in a fully pro league. He therefore fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as wrong venue, try WP:MFD. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Crazyborie[edit]

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

"User talk:Crazyborie" is not a suitable article. User talk pages are not articles. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOZGALEVSKY Nikolai Osipovich[edit]

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

Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Put diplomatically, after reading this article I have literally no idea what/who/when it is about. I have tried nominating for CSD but was unable to find a criteria for an article of this type. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Update It seems this article was a Google-translated copy of an article from the Russian Wikipedia which was deleted for being a copyright violation (see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мозгалевский_Николай_Осипович). The violating text has been removed entirely. The article is apparently about an individual involved with the Decembrist revolt. I have been unable to find any English-language information relating to the subject thus I submit failure to conform to WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had no problems finding on-line sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. – See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike my sister, I'm unfortunately unable to read/speak Russian. Who is he and why is he notable? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - there are obviously sources about him, clearly a officer in the Russian Imperial Army, so we can't delete on lack of sources. Question is, is he notable as a Decembrist ? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be notable as the ancestor of a lot of (upper class) people in the Yenisei area. The issue then boils down to the general notability of Decembrist. It is likely that Soviet historians considered all Decembrists as notable and wrote extensive biographies on them.

We had a similar discussion in the Finnish Wikipedia on the notability of individual members of the Jäger Movement. Finnish militarist had assembled multiple Matrikels on them. As reliable sources were available, we could not draw a line. By default every foot soldier became "notable". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I'm willing to accept Petri Krohn's judgement in this matter given his experience as an editor and contributor to similar historical articles. The article is now very different from the incomprehensible, Google-translated essay I felt should be deleted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Petri Krohn. Actualy I think all Decembrists (I mean noblemen) are notable, there were not that many of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Thiago Alcântara. History merge has been requested at the latter page. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Alcántara[edit]

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

Another article exists for this player: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Thiago_Alc%C3%A2ntara Mr. Mario (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Rafa Alcântara. History merge has been requested at the latter page. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafa Alcántara[edit]

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

Another article exists for this player: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Rafa_Alc%C3%A2ntara Mr. Mario (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series). No prejudice against recreation if it turns out to be necessary, consider this an interim decision only. Courcelles 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series) episodes[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Unreferenced and not much information on the episodes JDDJS (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series) for now - if the series lasts past the first few episodes, it'll be needed then... MikeWazowski (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. Should be able to restored to a full article once things start airing, so no need to delete it entirely, even if it is premature. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I went and added as much information as I could and would be willing to do more, but for the moment it does seem pretty lax. Redirect now and the content can be restored closer to the premiere. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jussi Huttunen[edit]

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

Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your deletion rationale? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has served as the head of several major scientific bodies, viz. the International Agency for Research on Cancer and National Public Health Institute of Finland. I mean, assuming that what's in the article is actually true, since it's not referenced, but lack of references isn't a problem to be solved by deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seriously needs references, but assuming the presented facts are true the person is easily notable. --hydrox (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep on basis of GS cites which pass WP:Prof#C1 by hundreds of miles and as above. Please will the nominator expand on reasons for deletion or was the nomination just vandalism? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A few references have been added. It is possible to add more, if necessary, although even now I have no doubts that this entry deserves inclusion. Viinamakelainen (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close). Pontificalibus (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amaan Stadium[edit]

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

An average soccer stadium in Africa. Fails the general notability guideline and WP:MILL. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this stadium were in New York and not Zanzibar, there is no way it would ever considered for deletion. Wikipedia's systematic bias strikes again.--TM 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a 15,000 person stadium in a major city, not a little league field in the middle of nowhere. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Zachlipton (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A very quick search on google, google books, and google news turned up coverage on historical events that have happened here. I've added these into the article, although I'm sure there is more to find. There is also some more recent coverage I haven't added yet on debates over its finances, use by the military, and use as a soccer stadium. A president of Zanzibar has been sworn in here. --Banana (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, this stadium appears to be notable in both a sporting and non-sporting context. Giant Snowman 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable and sources are cited very well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czixang gb (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG does not come under Mill, although that is just an essay. Adam4267 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable stadium. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many historical events have taken place there. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Forde[edit]

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

Subject was on the roster for Milton Keynes Lions a couple of years ago which is in the professional British Basketball League, I'm not sure whether playing in this league meets WP:NBASKETBALL (it's not one of the leagues specified), however the article and source do not specify he has actually played and I can't verify that he has, or find independent sources. January (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. BBL is non-Euroleague. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehmon Colbert. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable person just needs more resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylarkzoe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skylarkzoe is now blocked as a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mckhoii). January (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it was verified that he played in the BBL, that would not confer notability. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, so does not meet WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Stevens (bassist)[edit]

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

WP:N: Unable to find reliable secondary sources to evidence the notability of this bassist under GNG or MUSICBIO. This might be a reference to him but it isn't in-depth, and it doesn't really say much. The primary claim to notability appears to be relative to Brand X, our article on that group doesn't mention him. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (Author requested) by DGG - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MyTalk: A Mobile Social Community[edit]

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

Borderline spam, no indication of notability or widespread use. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a more promotional version was speedy-deleted. This version is a little toned down, and I felt in view of that it was better suited for AfD. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No text worth saving, content is 100% advertisement. Once that's deleted there's no article left to discuss. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete candidate, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement-related article. Keb25 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this page looks like any other wikipedia page describing foursquae, loopt or any other location based service. does not appear to be an advertisement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghodge (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Mghodge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA and reads like spam/ advert. Dialectric (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and because there is no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight at Noon[edit]

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

No evidence the film has been filmed or released. It is WP:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY2008 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First the article said it was scheduled for release in 2006, now it says released in 2009 in other places in WP (by the director etc.) No indication here of release date or even if it has been released. Zero references. Even the one external link given (to the internet movie database) is a dead link. Not even a link to a website for the movie. The article for the Ethan Hawke, listed here as one of the actors, does not list this in his filmography. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawk's participation is sourcable.[1] IMDB is not always up to date. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub for now per WP:NF/WP:TOSOON. While the history of this planned film can be sourced,[2] The most recent news I can find is that in August 2010, Ethan Hawk had "just finished" his work in the film.[3] Everything seems to have dried up as this project moved into post-production. Maybe later... but WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Sumoto[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actress under WP:GNG, no news entries at ANN, no sources at ja.wiki or via GWeb, GNews, Gbooks sources, no claims of notability under WP:ENT. I did attempt sourcing in English or Japanese but, of course, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:ENTERTAINER. She played one of the two female characters in a notable erotic anime, Swallowtail Inn, that certainly a significant role. The character Maiko Kaneda was a significant role also in a different notable series, Discipline: The Hentai Academy, she featured in most episodes. Dream Focus 16:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing here to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN fancruft *Delete: Fancruft for a character in a marginally (at best) notable obscure anime. Toddst1 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 16:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are added. BLP articles must be properly sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V requires that there be at least one reliable third-party source on the topic of each article, that criterion is not met here and as a core policy it overrules WP:ENT. I don't think there's anything in Japanese, as automated translation of some Google search results produced nothing and the corresponding entry in the Japanese Wikipedia is unreferenced. Hut 8.5 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Greenberg[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. She is not in the slightest bit notable enough for Wikipedia. Atomician (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, per above. Atomician (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with Atomician that she is not notable enough for wikipedia and that she should be deleted. Tony (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be specific, there's no evidence she conforms to WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The sources mention her only in the context of her husband, therefore any relevent and citeable information relating to this individual should be placed in the Karl Malden article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Pinkadelica ^♣ 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this stub to Karl Malden#Personal life where this person is already mentioned. While she is sourcable,[4] she does not merit a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl Malden#Personal life per MichaelQSchmidt. Kind of on the fence between redirect and delete, since the Malden article says little about her, but redirects are cheap and the redirect may serve a purpose to some users. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only reason I didn't choose redirect was that no-one knows who she is... you'd never type her name in. Second rate actor's wife doesn't even deserve a redirect article :/ Atomician (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for now. This article provides little context to the reader. A merge is suggested but no target is identified and Human services is a redlink. If an appropriate merge target is found there is no prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Will gladly restore page history if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner[edit]

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

Detailed description of credential with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG, as approved by three organizations of unknown notabiity. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and no WP:Secondary sources have been cited yet in the article. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, who works for one of the (redlinked) organizations cited, though this alone isn't sufficient grounds for deletion. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7 - there is no assertion of notability. If notability is asserted, I might revise.--Cerejota (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might have been a good idea to define human services first! No attempt made to establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep./merge Looking at their site, "human services" means counseling. In fact, it's pretty clear it does from the history paragraph It will of course be necessary to check they are legitimate, and to rewrite the jargon, and to explain a little better the apparently overlapping relationships of all the organizations listed. Normally we have articles all genuine national certifying organizations, and most of the time, merge their certifications requirements into those articles. . And, almost all the time, the articles on them are indeed written by people with COI. Of course it needs a proper check for references, and a check for objectivity also. I declined an A7, saying something is a national organization that offers accreditation in its field is a claim to possible importance. In fact, I regard saying something is a national organization in something not completely trivial is a claim to importance in any case. Nor do I regard it as a G11, for it is factual, not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (Lifehouse song)[edit]

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

This song is not notable enough to warrant its own article. According to WP:SONGS#Notability, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Also, WP:CHALLENGE says that, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." Because of this, I do believe that this article is not notable enough and verifiable enough to be a standalone article. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Three unformatted links, almost no coverage. No charting. Need I say more?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't charted, no release history, and no information really. Suggest mentioning on the parent album article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with the two above. Tony (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nymf _hideliho! 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the sources are another wiki and videos. Doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nomination ℥^nding·start 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete because it is a page without sufficient arguments.Silencio faz bem • Talk2Me 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually very lenient when it comes to uncharted single/song-pages... But this is ridiculous! Not only is it very poorly constructed, but the only references consists of youtube, tangle.com, and wiki-answers! wiki-answers?? Seriously?! No, unless someone can heavily edit the page, I say delete completely, or just redirect to the mother-page (No Name Face), but only if it is an actual single from the album. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do I have to explain? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other users, this article has no content to be maintained. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 20:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Rp0211 Oz ^talk 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is not well written. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No charting data, Wiki Answers, YouTube, and Tangle references, and a whole lot of original research,is really what this article comes down to. Is there really anyway to make an argument against deletion? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. Also, I think I see a consensus lol -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proof is in the pudding, it's just not notable according to WP:MUSIC. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 03:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late Shri Keshav Chandra Saha[edit]

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

Notability unclear. References not provided. Unable to verify material. Tone seems to be that of a memorial. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article would require a complete and total rewrite under another name to be at all encyclopedic, assuming that WP:N can be satisfied. Zachlipton (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see ANY notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2011 England riots#Deaths and injuries. There is a (not overwhelming, but distinct) consensus that this incident does not merit coverage in a separate article. There is no clear consensus about whether we should merge all or part of the content to 2011 England riots or delete it outright, but that can be addressed at the editorial level through continued discussion. Consequently, I'm closing this as a redirect, and any relevant content can be merged from the history to the extent that there is editorial consensus for the retention of such material in the main article (or any eventual subarticle). Sandstein 07:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard Mannington Bowes[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. An unfortunate death, but not notable. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a biography it fails WP:BLP1E and as an article on the murder itself it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge anything useful into the main article on the riots. Further, WP:VICTIM states "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply, as this is about an event, not a biography. Ng.j (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but currently the article is so small that it is half bio and half event; it could go either way and I was voicing my opinion for delete regardless. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E also does not apply because the subject is no longer a living person. Warden (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the same thing is also said at WP:VICTIM.See WP:BIO1E; it says the same thing about ALL biographies. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VICTIM states "... historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." We have that here as the subject not just one of many mundane victims but has received detailed and special attention. Moreover, it states that "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.". The relevant parent article here would be 2011 England riots which is now 150K in size. WP:SIZE therefore indicates that a sub-article is quite appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While normally I would push for a deletion, there are multiple reasons for notability. The subject is being reported internationally, and Google News has over 1,000 articles on the subject already. I recommend we WP:Give an article a chance, and if it doesn't grow we can merge it into the already long 2011 England riots article. I would also like to point out that that WP:NOTNEWS#NEWS is to keep out routine news items that aren't covered in depth. The fact that the murder took place during a major event lends it notability, as does the reaction following it.

Some key points to consider:

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.

Ng.j (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ:

Notability is not inherited. An event that happens within a notable event is not automatically notable itself, at least not enough for an independent article. It is a feature of the event, as such, the information belongs in the 2011 England riots. Merge shouldn't be pursued, as per WP:UNDUE, the article would have a severe impact in unbalancing the proper coverage of the riots as a historic event.

There is no significant or in-depth coverage of this event. All the coverage is directly linked to the riots, or about all the deaths linked to the riots - not in-depth coverage in the sense the policy suggests. There is simply no notability here as generally understood in wikipedia.

This event will probably not have significant coverage independent of the riots. It currently doesn't have any significant coverage in RS that justify an independent notability. The current mentions in the media will probably not go beyond this news cycle. If it does in the future, maybe we can WP:SUMMARY from 2011 England riots - we can delete without prejudice to future establishment of notability.
International coverage - understood as independent coverage by international media (ie not British) is insignificant or negligible, in particular when compared with coverage of the riots.

Unlike the wider event of the 2011 England riots, none of the deaths within it, even those in heavy news rotation, are notable events in themselves. They might or might not become notable as time passes, but they all have the characteristics of common, non-notable murders, of which hundreds if not thousands happen world-wide on a daily basis. The fact that they happened during a notable event, does makes it sufficient to mention in that event's article, but doesn't establish enough notability for an independent article. No one says this content must be ignored or trivialized, we only argue to keep in mind the different goals that an encyclopedia and the news media have. That said, over at WikiNews they might want an article on this topic, rather than just the riots themselves.--Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable sub-subject of a larger theme. Notable already by itself. An upmerge is pointless due to the size of the parent article and the narrow focus of this item. That narrow focus is important though - as the media similarly focuses on this event. It seems to me though that there is a general desire to delete anything that the public might be interested it - which will in the end leave us with pokemon-pedia. Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain notability as per WP:NEVENTS and WP:BIO1E? I see no reason for this warranting its own article unless evidence to the contrary is provided.--Cerejota (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is impossible to explain notability as per WP:NEVENTS and WP:BIO1E. Anybody who tries has never read those links. WP:BIO1E discusses if an article should be written about the person (aka bio) or about the event. It specifically discusses the event article to be named after the person if the person played a major role. It does not stipulate an active role. WP:NEVENTS on the other hand focuses on sources. Buzzwords are depth and diversity of sources. While foreign articles will not be used in the article when sufficiant English sources are available it is worth checking for those. This event has garnered international media attention. Also a subsection says: "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary". Agathoclea (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ENCYCLOPEDIC FACT (Gabinho^>:) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom. I think a single line in 2011 England riots would be due mention of this event. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worth a mention in 2011 England riots per WP:ONEEVENT, but not its own article, per WP:CRIME, WP:N/CA.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure/Comment. This is notable, but probably not notable enough for it's own article, but possible more notable than just an one sentence mention on the 2011 England riots page, perhaps a page called Deaths in the 2011 England riots should be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the existing 2011 England Riots article, it's part of a larger event and not notable in of itself. Zerbey (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "He was the fifth fatality of the 2011 England riots." Are we going to have an individual article on every fatality? No, that would be pointless. NOTNEWS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, we should have this content somewhere. I'm unsure though whether it is better as a standalone article or as part of a larger one (either the main riots article or a broader sub-article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is kept, I think Death of Richard Mannington Bowes would be a better, more neutral title. Nobody has been convicted of murder and it is more likely than not that anyone charged with murder will plead not guilty. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the title change and will be WP:BOLD and do it.--Cerejota (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2011 England riots. If the riots article is considered to be too large (at the moment, I don't think it is), we should consider splitting off either the section on effects or the sub-section on deaths. (Should there be a lot of coverage of his death at, say, the trial of his killers, there could be a case for restoring the article as and when that coverage appears.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly obvious merge to 2011 England riots. Richard Mannington Bowes was an entirely private person who got tragically caught up in the riots. His notability derives solely through that event. While the article is long and detailed, I don't see that his section will be lost amid the detail, if properly written. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. Time will tell whether this death is significant or not in the grand scheme of things. Deb (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the riots article. This terrible incident can't really stand alone as an article and the poor guy was not otherwise notable, but the information should definitely be kept. If the riots article is too long, it can be properly split as explained above by others. If this incident later becomes more notable, it can become an article again. At the moment, it's not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate footnote to a notable event, this fails WP:BIO1E utterly. --Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails WP:NEVENTS. We are not news.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a biography article, it is an article about an EVENT. Ng.j (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO1E with regards of WP:NEVENTS, the two support each other in terms of establishing notability. BIO1E is not only about articles, but also about the information articles contain to wit: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. (BIO1E). However, it is correct that the main criteria to be used is WP:NEVENTS, which it fail utterly. There is absolutely no coverage of this death that is independent of the riots or of the other deaths in the riots, and the subject is not notable previously, so his death has no presumption of being notable for that reason. --Cerejota (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – in case the article is kept, it should be noted that it has not been established that the death was murder. In the UK, to be considered murder, the killer must have had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. At the moment there is only a suspect who may or may not be responsible for the death, and if he is responsible, may or may not have had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The article, and the article title, should not prejudge the issue. --Lambiam 18:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to 2011 England riots
Merge with the 2011 England Riots article. (A. Carty (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and change title back to Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes. BIO1E only applies to biographies. This is an article about his killing. It is a high-profile case, covered by many national and international media sources. It is similar to the murder of Garry Newlove, except that RMB was killed during a riot. We don't need someone to have been convicted of murder to use the title Murder of x. No-one has been convicted of the murder of Joanna Yeates. The suspect in that case denies murder, admits manslaughter and is on remand awaiting trial. Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E doesn't just applies to biographical articles, it applies to biographical information in general (Such as circumstances of death), including that in an article about an event. This event, however, clearly fails WP:NEVENTS, being an unfortunate and tragic footnote in a larger event that is indeed notable. As to your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison (something you should avoid in a deletion discussion), what you describe as a trivial difference is in fact a core difference - the fact that this death happened in direct correlation as the riots robs it of independent notability as an event. Sounds unfair, but that is how notability works as per WP:NEVENTS, and how being known for a single event works under WP:BIO1E. This death is not independently notable from the riots, in which a significant number of deaths have happened, all tragic, none independently notable WP:NEVENTS or of people notable before the riot WP:BIO1E. There is nothing notable about this death except that it happened in the context of a notable event. Notability is not inherited. WP:UNDUE suggests that a mention of the death be done in the main article, with consideration in terms of weight be given, and not going into non-notable detail. We are not a police blotter in which every crime, no matter how atrocious, must have a separate article. From an encyclopedic - rather than news - stand point, all crimes commited under the riots are a single historical event, and hence not independently notable. This is in contrast to Death of Mark Duggan, which is independently notable as the direct cause of the Tottenham riot, which was the riot that set these events in motion, and hence his death is a key fact of understanding the riots as a historical and encyclopedic, instead of as an immediate and newsworthy, notable event. --Cerejota (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2011 England riots for goodness sake. Unless this becomes a high profile murder investigation then there doesn't seem any point in having an article about it? Haven't checked, but dDo we also have one for those unfortunate guys who got run over in Birmingham? If so, merge that as well. It can easily be accommodated in the article about the riots I would think. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 England riots. Sad though it is, the death isn't especially remarkable, and RMB wasn't otherwise noteworthy.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terribly sad; but not sufficiently notable to be worthy of being spilt from the 'riots article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename to Murder of... Someone stated above that their reason for delete was that Wikipedia is not not news, but lets take a good check Wikipedia is built on news and is in fact news... to say that wikipedia is not news is a contradiction..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If Death of Mark Duggan remains even though his death had nothing to do with orgy of looting and arson that followed, then this article certainly should remain as well. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That the Death of Mark Duggan "had nothing to do with orgy of looting and arson that followed" is exactly why it is a separate article, it is notable independently of the rioting/looting. The death of Mr Bowes is inextricably linked to the events - it was a direct result of them. The question is whether to include the information about him and his death as part of the main article about the riots or as a subarticle, either focused exclusively on him or combined with other deaths resulting from the riots. The status of the Mark Duggan article is therefore irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 England riots. Non notable and, whilst sad, doesn't warrant a specific article. Quentin X (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the riots page. Do we have articles for each of the unfortunate victims of the riots? Do we have articles for the deaths of all people killed in episodes of anti-social behaviour? The death is tragic and sad, but it isn't noteworthy. Arnie Side (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above arguments for merging. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blair Peach was killed during a demonstration. The murder of Keith Blakelock happened as part of a riot. What is different about Bowes' killing, to mean it does not deserve an article? Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The circumstances of the deaths of Blair Peach and Keith Blakelock became "causes célèbres" for many, and defining moments in British history. Although Bowes' has resulted in wide publicity, in my opinion it has not become such a defining moment. (It could change, of course, in which case an article would then be appropriate.)--A bit iffy (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Best to see how it transpires in the media and such before we reach a decision. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a high-profile murder case with much notability and political impact. Our editing policy is to keep such well-sourced material. Warden (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 England Riots. Tragic, most certainly, but non-notable. Spacini (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - as highly related to the 2011 England riots, but completely separate - as an event - from them, this article more that satisfies WP:GNG, and there is no reason for it to not exist. People need to kneejerk a little less, and read sources a little more. Nevard (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF please. The point is that although the story is clearly covered in sources at a national level, one of the other requirements of WP:EVENT is the duration of coverage. As the poor guy only died a couple of days ago, there simply isn't enough time to demonstrate longevity of coverage yet, so reading every single word of every single citation to prove that would be a waste of time. (Okay, there are some stories like Baby P which can be presumed notable immediately when there's little doubt the story will run and run, but this isn't one of them.) Don't assume everyone who !votes delete/merge is kneejerking - they have valid opinions too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. the event is covered as an individual item in international news not just locally in tiny Britain. As far as the kneejerking is concerned Wikipedia:NEVENTS#Breaking_news asks editors to wait until the dust settles before nominating for deletion. Agathoclea (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. As I clearly stated, the issue isn't geographical scope of the coverage, it's duration. Yes, it makes sense to hold off a few days to nominate for deletion if there's a significant chance that the story will clearly meet WP:EVENT within a few days, but with the news about the riots now being dominated by other issues, it's a reasonable opinion that this isn't one of them. In any case, the guidelines also suggests considering alternatives such as merge, which is precisely what many people are doing. Don't confuse knee-jerk reactions with differing opinions; trying to force outcomes based of over-prescriptive interpretations of policy is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that guideline is to wait until it is clear whether there will be significant continuing coverage or not. Just as in some cases it's clear from the off that there will be extended coverage (e.g. Death of Mark Duggan) it is clear in others that there will not be (e.g. the death of Ben Woollacott, the 19-year old crew member who died after falling overboard from the Woolwich Ferry). However this case is neither of them - it is not clear at this point whether it will be like Mark Duggan or Ben Woollacott - so nominations for deletion should wait until it is clear. A discussion about merging would have been far more appropriate at this time. It might be that editors should have waited a few more days before starting the article, but once created you should leave it around 5-7 days at least before nominating for deletion (my personal standard) when coverage could go either way. WP:CRYSTAL applies equally to predictions of notability and predictions of non-notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Hold back from closing debate until, say, 1 September by which time it might be clearer whether the event is notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least wait and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being at least, or possibly merge. Judging by the press coverage at the moment this event is notable enough for a mention. The riots article is rather large, and a little more background on specific events such as this one would make it even more so, and not sit well within the article. At some point all the articles these about events will settle down, maybe then would be a good time to consolidate. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete now renominate in 3 months if by then it hasn't been merged or the lasting significance of the event demonstrated.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Watchful waiting is the best approach here. It can always be deleted later. Perhaps after the thousands of other Wikipedia articles have been deleted that have no merit whatsoever but have slipped under the radar of the wikicops because unlike this article they are so insignificant they haven't raised any flags. Oh but hang on a moment. Doesn't the fact that so many are posting here arguing for or against keeping this article in itself provide evidence that perhaps the article is more significant than the wikicops are willing to concede it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.25.55 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 England Riots. A tragic event without doubt but non-notable in terms of a stand alone article.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 England Riots. There is very little reason for the death to be given its own page at the moment, all this information is better off as a part of the main England Riots article. Angry Lampshade (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic has received extensive coverage in the sources, seems noteable enough for its own article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook ONEEVENT. Discount the usual suspects (as always) and the only argument here is "this could potentially have far-reaching consequences in UK law", but it is in no way unique in that regard compared to any of the other deaths related to the event, and is argument by prophecy anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:ONEEVENT indeed: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified ... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." We have hundreds of mainstream sources for this and the murder trial moves to the Old Bailey tomorrow so coverage is still ramping up. Meanwhile, the 2011 England riots is still growing and spawning other sub-articles such as Timeline of 2011 England riots and Causes of the 2011 England riots. It's still up around 100K, which, per WP:SIZE, is too big to be merging more detail in. There's not the slightest case for deletion here and so only a usual suspect like yourself would suggest otherwise. Warden (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss zealotry with me, Warden, you've almost certainly "participated" in more AfDs since the start of the calendar year than I've ever looked at. As for your selective quoting of ONEEVENT, I'll leave it to that part of the community whose "opinions" at AfD aren't skipped over as a matter of course to compare this subject with the examples given in that guideline (a clue: when you're looking at the LA riots, this subject is not the Rodney King of the story). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in AFDs does indeed seem to be quite selective and, in this case, seems to be a tit-for-tat against FeydHuxtable - tsk. The quoting of WP:ONEEVENT is very relevant. This guideline does not tell us to delete content indiscriminately but to have regard to attention given by reliable sources to the individual's role. The individual in this case has been given extensive and continuing coverage internationally and in all the quality press. The guidance is therefore that coverage is justified. Warden (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE is of no issue if we realize this not a notable incident, not more notable that the other four deaths in this event, and hence requires no more than a mention of the death, and perhaps the media coverage. WP:SENSATION tells us to not confuse coverage with notability even is coverage is one of the factors of notability - but not the only one. There is not a single source that I have read that establishes encyclopedic as opposed to journalistic notability in this case.--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SENSATION is referring to "tabloid or yellow journalism". This topic has however been covered by the quality press - reputable media and journals such as the BBC, The Times and The Guardian which continue to report the matter today, over a week after the original incident. Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant - please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains that "Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

Selective policy reading is selective: A little further down, WP:SENSATION says: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." So, your point is not really supported by the text: otherwise reliable source can and will engage in sensationalism and yellow journalism, and this should weigh in our considerations, not be dismissed. No one in their right mind would question the newsworthy" nature of this topic, nor of the need to include information in 2011 England riots (as it already does). What we do question is that this coverage is an indicator of independent notability that leads to encyclopedic coverage, or if it is a result of WP:SENSATION. Notability is not the sole or even most important criteria for inclusion, it is also encyclopedic worthiness. This topic is not worthy of its own encyclopedia article, althought this topic should be covered in the main article on the riots, with WP:UNDUE considerations, and with consideration to the fact that we are not a memorial for those who die, get murdered, or etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs)

This is a serious matter - a murder which will now be tried in the UK's highest criminal court - Sept. 9th is the next court date. To suggest that this is infotainment or a silly season story is both offensive and inaccurate. Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant - this is not a reality show either and you don't get a vote to decide who leaves the island. What matters is the independent verdict of professional editors and publishers - the ones who produce those reliable sources. Note that, besides covering this murder at length, that they have also been commenting on the death of the silly season - see Global anxiety kills the silly season or New York Times, for example. The verdict of such independent commentators is that we have an atypical August this year and that this is not a silly season story. Warden (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juno, Mak[edit]

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

Duplicated with Juno Mak. Nivekin (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check also if Juno Mak(which is now having the same content) is a suitable article for wiki.--Nivekin (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it is a duplicate, but there's no need to start an AfD. I tagged the article as {{db-a10}}. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/rename. The situation has changed since this debate started, it is no longer original research or speculation to say that these are incidents are related, at least in the press. The suggestion that a broader article on mining in Ukraine is needed is something that should probably be explored further on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Ukraine mine accidents[edit]

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

Article grouping together two un-notable and unrelated news items that coincidentally happened in the same country on the same day. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Suhodolskaya-Vostochnaya coal mine and Bazhanova Coal Mine, the two mines where the accidents occurred. The accidents are notable events, but the existing articles provide a good context for encyclopedic coverage of the accidents. The coincidental occurrence of two accidents in one day is something that definitely necessitated dual coverage by world news media, but that news judgment does not mean that the two accidents should be covered in the same encyclopedia article. I've started the merger process by adding information about the accident to the S-V article. Similar additions are needed in the Bazhanova mine article, and both articles should mention the other accident that occurred on the same day. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the two entries to the relevant mine descriptions is a good idea and solves the issue as described in the entry above. Reading about a mine accident would require first some general technical remarks on that particular mine to better understand the background of the accident which can only be given on the relevant mine page. In addition, the current page suggests already in the first line that "the 2011 mine accidents" in the Ukraine were the only two accidents that occured in 2011. However, one can be sure that there are more mines in the Ukraine in which accidents occured in that year. The fact that the two accidents incidently happened on the same day does not indicate that the two accidents were linked.

195.200.70.43 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My first reaction was to support merger. However, on 4 August a new deadly accident occured when methane leaked at the Krasnokutska coal mine. These accidents may be coincidents, but it seems that there are systematic problems with conditions and safety of Ukrainian mines. Therefore, keep it now and try to develop more broader article. If progress is not made, we could return to the AfD process. Beagel (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, we can speculate about the possibility that the occurrence of several accidents in a short period of time might indicate systemic problems. I can also speculate that the occurrence of several incidents in a brief period might lead to regulatory changes, social protests, labor unrest, etc. However, until someone else (i.e., a reliable source) documents these relationships, that's just speculation (and original research), which cannot be the basis for creating or keeping a Wikipedia article. If and when someone else documents connections between the accidents, the article could be created again. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my speculation. Conditions of the Ukrainian coal mines are widely and long time discussed issue. These three accident are seen as a possible result of underinvestments e.g. by this article. But yes, if the article stays in its current form and describes only two accidents without wider background, it would be better to merge it into coal mines articles'. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to create Coal mining in Ukraine (currently a redirect to Coal mining), similar to articles like Coal mining in the United States, Coal mining in India, etc. Such an article would provide better context for discussing the larger and long-term issues than this article about two accidents on the same day. --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two unrelated incidents. Wikipedia is not the place to group arguably similar incidents together because it might show problems with the Ukrainian mining industry. Whether both incidents are actually worthy of an article or not is another matter, but they certainly should not be in the same one. wacky wace 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the events are apparently unrelated and already covered in the respective articles. Sandstein 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the link appears to be that the President has ordered an inquiry which will look into both events. For more sources, see here (BBC Ukrainian Service). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some time ago I merged information about the two accidents into the articles about the mines where the accidents occurred. I just now updated that information (more deaths had been confirmed) and added information to both articles about the other accident that occurred on the same day. In updating the information about the accidents, I found that there was another fatal accident (one killed, 25 injured) in a Ukrainian coal mine just 6 days later (August 4)[5][6] and another fatal accident (two deaths reported) just yesterday (August 18).[7] --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems that the president of the country joining the two together in an inquiry means that separate coverage is a disservice to readers and will lead to redundant information i both articles, with the difference in quality that entails. Better centralized information now that OR is out of the question based on new sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Morris[edit]

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

No senior career, search of Google comes up almost dry (one source, Checkeredflag website, of unknown quality). Article author appears to have heavy COI. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vickie Powell[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO, no assertion of notability, no awards won, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, though subject has abundant mentions in unreliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Also fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Keb25 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whatever coverage is out there seems to be limited to the trivial and the promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Google and Yahoo didn't show any biographical sources aside from the pornography videos links. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a porn model, she has done nothing outstanding relative to her counterparts.Curb Chain (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Maybe someone will actually undertake the task of improving this, otherwise I suspect it will be back here in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crownpoint North Retail Park[edit]

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

Very small retail park / shopping mall with no notable or anchor stores. No references given to assert notability. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs some tlc, 'tis all. Plenty of references to it, just search http://menmedia.co.uk for Crown Point North or Reeb Estates. Plenty of anchor stores, just look at http://www.crownpointshoppingpark.co.uk/ to get H&M, Bhs, Tesco Homeplus, Dorothy Perkins, JD Sports, M&S Outlet. Part of the site was a hat factory that blew up in 1901 killing several people. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice. Paralleling Mr Stephen's comments, it's probably worth giving the article more than a week to be developed, sources to be located, etc. If a month or two goes by and it's still as sparse an article as it currently is, then a renomination would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given it's history of numerous CSD and lack of notability/references, I see no reason to keep this page. BTech United (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place is little more than what the Americans call a strip mall - a small regional mall with a handful of stores. It is even laid out like an American strip mall. There are shopping centres like this in every town in the UK - some towns have many of these. It's the large shopping centres like the Trafford Centre, Central Milton Keynes, Brent Cross, The Metro Centre, Meadowhall etc. that deserve articles. All the references in the world don't alter the fact that this is a small and unimportant mall. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, hence why It has been CSD'd earlier, but turned into a semi-deletion war. BTech United (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy if it will avoid a deletewar. I tried an even more forgiving search of the menmedia site and could only locate 2 mentions, both somewhat trivial. Is there something I am missing? Unfortunatly all my usual mall cite sources dont pull up anything outside N.A. :/ Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "All the references in the world don't alter the fact that this is a small and unimportant mall." ummm... Yes they do actually. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See below my quotes from WP:ORG, noting that lots of media coverage is of a type which fails to indicate notability. All the trivial, routine, local, passing-reference, directory listing, or press-release references in the world do not establish notability. Multiple instances of in-depth coverage at a national or regional level in reliable and independent sources certainly would establish notability, if it existed. There is a difference. Edison (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the current status of the user, I suspect Userfying won't happen. Just putting that out there. BTech United (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per C.Fred and Mr Stephen. NtheP (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:ORG. Mr Stephen identified a newspaper or other news site, and just said "look for evidence of notability." That in itself does not support notability. Where are specific examples of independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the mall as an entity? Press releases about a sale at Tesco, or routine and humdrum announcements of a fender-bender in the parking lot or a shoplifter arrested do not support notability.WP:ORG says "Trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability" and "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national or international source is necessary." Spare us accounts of how a hat factory at the same location blew up in 1901, since notability of a mall is not inherited from an ancient news event affecting an unrelated business. Nor is notability for a mall inherited from national companies having stores there. A number of editors spent some time working on a proposed guideline, WP:MALL, for notability of malls, which in the end was not adopted. One thing we did find was a classification system created by an international association of shopping center operators. A "regional mall" has at least 400,000 square feet of leasable space. A "super-regional" one has over 800,000. [8] says Crown Point has only 290,000 square feet of leasable space for 22 retail units. This makes it a mall of only local interest, and I expect there are thousands of this size nationally. Malls this small have typically been deleted in past AFDs. Edison (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Square footage is a very blunt measure of notability or encyclopedic-ness. As luck would have it, there are plans to open Crown Point East, another 165,000 sq ft of new retail and commercial space (MEN 16 June 2011). TBH, I'm not sure exactly where it is or if if it would count as part of the same development; it is apparently 'linked', which doesn't tell me much. The MEN is not exactly the Little Snoring Echo, but it is regional, and I guess the Estates Gazette, The Grocer, Retail Week, Property Week and the Dow Jones Newswire (all of which have mentioned, variously, the costs, size, architects, its presence as an an indicator of the local economy, evidence of various retailers' expansion plans, change of ownership, blah blah) are "media of limited interest". I can live with or without the article in its current state. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify some good refs from the sources you have noted? You just mentioned the one specific story. That would be helpful, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I would not discount trade press in some specialized area just because it is specialized. That is a puzzling aspect of WP:ORG. I would discount the local free shopper's guide,but a national publication about real estate or commerce might be relevant. Sq ft is an industry standard for "Region" and "Super regional" to screen out 30,000 articles about the neighborhood strip mall, sort of a quick screen such as keeping licensed radio stations which originate some of their own programming (and deleting repeater transmitters or hobby online radio stations), or keeping high schools (merging elementary schools), or keeping pro sports people who played a game, or someone who was on the Elbonian Olympic team, people who served in a national legislature, etc and screening out those whose stats or qualifications are lesser. I would not mind 100 articles on super-regional malls, which in fact are likely to have substantial coverage in regional publications, but don't see the point of articles on tens of thousands of little strip malls, since Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or that existed which was only of local interest. Edison (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to spend long on this, but the sort of sources that someone (~~probably~~ not me) could mine to give a startup article include:

Playing it cool with non-food: 756 words: 8 October 2005: The Grocer: Among the first things you see as you enter Tesco’s first dedicated non-food Homeplus store in Denton, east Manchester, are crates and bottles of wine on special offer…

Greater Manchester review - EYECATCHERS: 405 words: 19 July 2004: North West Business Insider: … Crown Point North, Denton… This 212,000 sq ft retail development, built by Reeb Estates at junction 1 of the M67 just half a mile from junction 24 of the M60 in Denton, has proven to be an outstanding success.

Suburban transformation.: 725 words: 27 March 2004: Estates Gazette: Catchment focus. Three schemes, at Harpurhey, Cheetham Hill and Denton are strengthening Manchester's overall retail offer . Pillar Property has been busy with its two retail parks - Manchester Fort at Cheetham Hill and Crown Point North in Denton. Both are on the east side of Greater Manchester, but that is where the similarities end… [it's doing badly]

Property UK - Greater Manchester - Stores in their eyes.: 2553 words: 26 September 2003: Property Week: Manchester's retail sector is gearing up for a raft of new schemes and refurbs. Simon Creasey looks at developments at the Trafford Centre, and the city centre and out-of-town markets.

Retail Property - Pillar to purchase Manchester park.: 94 words: 1 November 2002: Retail Week: Pillar Property has agreed to buy the Crown Point North shopping park in East Manchester. The park is being developed by Reeb Estates and Mowlem subsidiary Maple Oak.

It would need effort. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Verbal jousting aside, delete !voters have pointed out problems with the article, but have not provided rationales for deletion that account for the sources found. causa sui (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fathead (brand)[edit]

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

This page has been tagged as an advertisement for nearly a year with no meaningful improvements. The few "references" on the page aren't notable references but mainly more advertising (links to questionable "Awards and Recognitions"). B.Rossow · talk 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have started to make more edits in order to save the page. Do you have other suggestions to help us clean this page up? 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.188.130 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A surprising nomination, being a rather ubiquitous entity among sports fans, a company owned by the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers of the National Basketball Association. I'll do a little delving here tonight. Let's start with this INDEPENDENT AND SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE FROM MSNBC entitled "Fathead Grows Business by Thinking Big." Carrite (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fathead was in the news when Lebron James took his talents to South Beach and the jilted Dan Gilbert put LBJ gear on sale in a huff. THIS IS A BLOG POST but if anyone is looking to fix this article up, there are a ton of similar things that can be mined. The story would make a couple good paragraphs of content. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein as the above, Kelly Dwyer of YAHOO SPORTS. This is a reliable "new media" source, in my view, although called a "blog" as part of its marketing schtick. Dwyer is a pro and Yahoo is a gargantuan media corporation. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report from NESN cites the New York Daily News as the original source of the Dan Gilbert Slashes LBJ Prices story, for the record... Carrite (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fathead is the named sponsor of a new outstanding Freshman player of the week in the BCS of college football this season, according to THIS REPORT BY THE SPORTS NETWORK. Not exactly independent coverage, but it does go to the idea that this is not some tiny fly-by-night enterprise, but a very large fixture in the world of American sports. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's NEW YORK SPOTS JOURNALISM-DOT-COM with a piece from 2009 on the Fathead phenomenon. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the nomination be surprising? Certainly not ubiquitous here, I don't believe I've ever heard/seen them before; and none of these refs are on the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:BEFORE... Before you run something up to AfD, you should snort around pretty hard on the internets to see if the sources exist. Whether they're in the article or not is neither here nor there, that can be fixed through normal editing. The question, as you know, is whether the sources exist to allow this subject to qualify as an encyclopedia-worthy topic according to inclusion guidelines... Carrite (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Carrite that Fathead is a significant presence in the world of sports merchandise (the 2007 MSNBC article leads off, "It hasn't taken long for Fathead to squeeze itself into the pop culture pantheon.") and Carrite has identified sources to back this up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As its first sentence indicates, this article is an advertisement for Fathead brand vinyl graphics by Fathead LLC. One might like the company, its products, and its website; mention its website in lists of company websites; and post laudatory reports about the company and its products: but this article is still an advertisement. By contrast, see the article on the Bobblehead doll. That article describes a popular collectible toy that is often used to represent sports figures, yet the article maintains NPOV and advertises nothing. Ornithikos (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make valid editing suggestions, hopefully when this closes a Keep someone will be inspired to work this piece over a bit. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make no editing suggestions, avoid trivializing the comments of others, do not assume that my views, being correct, will naturally prevail, and have no interest in psychological jousting, in which extraneous skill your reputation precedes you. I simply describe this article as I perceive it: "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" from the first word to the last. Ornithikos (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ready (beer)[edit]

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

No sources, appears to be an advertisement. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the James Ready Cap Recall promo did win awards (a CLIO even), the beer itself does not inherate notability from that. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hey, I love beer and the promotion sounds cool, but it just didn't get enough coverage. I found only one thing at Google News, from Marketing Magazine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iflorist[edit]

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

Unreferenced article for an unremarkable company which claims to operate 1800 florists, but in truth is just a company that provides services to those outlets. No assertion of notability is made e.g. turnover, number of employees, number of transactions per day/month/year etc. Biker Biker (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's this story in The Register about faked positive reviews [9]. Other than that I don't see genuine independent coverage. Delete as NN. — Brianhe (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'm tempted to rewrite this article to begin "Iflorist is an online florist retailer noted for it alleged fabrication of positive online reviews to counter an overwhelmingly negative perception from real customers ...", I think it's got to be delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable third-party sources, media coverage in general. I didn't see any third-party links on Google and Yahoo that could help this article on an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this relisted? There are three delete !votes, not counting the nominator, and absolutely no comments to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowergram[edit]

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

Unreferenced article for an unremarkable and defunct company Biker Biker (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of notable third-party mentions aside from their website. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct company that does not appear to have been notable even in its prime, and does not have a currently existing successor to merge to. Hard to search because the name is so commonly used, with or without the capital F. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Gour Ganguly[edit]

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

There are not multiple reliable sources independent of the subject to confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. I didn't see anything that could support the article on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After much review, I have still found no reason (or source) that states that this person is notable, or for what. This seems to be a clear delete... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No reason why this article should exist. This article should be a delete, there is no reason to keep this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Kings of Oceania 2005 Round 3[edit]

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

another sprawling non notable results page that fails WP:GNG. also nominating:

K-1 Kings of Oceania 2005 Round 1
K-1 Kings of Oceania 2005 Round 2
K-1 Hungary Grand Prix 2005 LibStar (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These were all minor events. At best they were used for qualifying for a tournament used for qualifying for an event which qualified you for the K-1 final event. All of the articles lack independent sources and are just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NSPORTS. Four articles with two sources between them. Fails WP:EVENT in every way. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a copyvio (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSlh=1&GRid=74700909&). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Gigli[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an obituary page. E Wing (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of male superheroes[edit]

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

This list would be virtually impossible to define or complete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- I have tried for a couple months to sandbox this into something less unwieldy but there is just no dice. Most of the entries can be found under other lists such as marvel superheroes, nintendo characters, etc etc. Not to mention that there is no real reason for a modifier such as "male" with the exception of winnowing down, which can itself be alleviated by simply sticking with lists already in place. Basically for awhile now it has just become a useful article for vandals to insert things. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, it has been vandalized (with only sporadic clean ups). That is not a reason to delete (visit Betsy Ross while U.S. schools are in session for vandalism...). Virtually impossible to define? Heck no. We simply need to establish criteria for the article. I've started by demanding a linkable article mentioning the character. While I'm only part way through, this has removed a number of supposed examples that I was unable to link. Any added since then will need a link. Next up, I'm going to insist on a reliable source using the term "superhero" and referring to the character as "he". Will it ever be "complete" under these criteria? No. Neither will we ever "finish" List of LGBT writers, List of University of Pennsylvania people, List of people from Florida, etc. However, the task is manageable. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- please don't distort my reasoning. I did not say vandalism is a reason to delete. Placing it at the opening of your statement makes it seem thus. I simply made the statement of what the list has actually provided (what it's worth is to an encyclopedia) because I tend to look further down the road than a day, week or month. I am saying basically because of redundancy that the article is not needed. Most of these can be found under already existing lists such as I mentioned. Whether they are from a comic universe or video games, etc etc, these entries simply are not needed. For the most part as far as I can find they are already listed. I am sure you yourself (per your recent work on the page finding blue links) have found most of these already listed. If they have not be added to the corresponding list i.e. Marvel superheroes, D.C., etc etc then it would simply be a matter of adding them to that existing list and not creating an overly large redundant list in which to find them all. "Just because we can does not mean we must". We are an encyclopedia not a redundant link site. And at no point was it mentioned by me that this would be a complete list. I agree with you on that. It would be like creating a so called complete census list of names in the state of bavaria- unless no one was ever born there again after a certain date it would be a complete waste of time. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT - "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." This list is mind-boggling, and could theoretically contain all male superheros from all fictional mediums from all over the world and from any time period. Yikes. There are existing lists which will contain these characters in a more presentable form, and many others which could be made to cross the gaps, this is just too broad. Someoneanother 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "all male superheros from all fictional mediums from all over the world and from any time period." Sure, like the List of people from Florida is going to contain the names of the hundreds of millions of people from Florida? No, all notable male superheros. Nothing more. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even when applied only to notable characters, or notable works with relevant characters, the list's scope is too broad by a mile. When a list's population can consist of everything from 60s American cartoons to 80s British computer games and 90s Indian TV series it needs to be something pretty specific to keep the population a reasonable size. That isn't the case here. The next thing to do is split the list. Since it's inclined towards comic books, a lot of the content is already listed on existing lists which perform the same job. Trying to hammer out more specific lists from this would take longer than starting afresh with more specific lists. That leaves deletion. Someone another 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These unlimited lists are nothing but trouble. They inherently lead to notability problems and soon become dumping grounds of unmanageable data. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not an unlimited list any more than List of people from Florida is. Both lists are limited beyond the huge scope of their titles to notable examples. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - re And yet this still does not address the redundancy issue. Lists for these characters exist. We do not make List A of what is in List B which can be found in List C. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, some List_of_Marvel_Universe_characters are male superheroes and some Lists of Nintendo characters are male superheroes. So what? All List of people from Miami (and List of people from Fort Lauderdale, Florida are people from Florida. Where is this "list for these characters" where the characters are male superheroes (and yes, we have the female equivalent)? Is it List of superheroes and villains without superpowers? Or List of superhero teams and groups? Maybe it's List of superhero debuts? Surely all of those (and dozens more) are somehow redundant as well? Honestly, I can't see how a list of female superheroes is somehow not notable ("Hey, look at that. There are a bunch of female superheroes."), but certainly that would have to be "redundant" as well, right? We certainly have a lot of lists of this type -- far more than one little AfD can handle. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentOther stuff exists is not an argumentEven with only bluelink examples, the list is currently over 500 entries long. There is a point where there is so much data on a page, that it morphs from information to noise. This is noise.--Djohns21 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - It's long so delete it? The bluelinks are in response to the still unsupported claim that we don't make lists that include material from other lists. Obviously, we do. Where is the guideline that says we don't? Where are the lists that this list includes/is included in? Yes, it's long. Yes, it's been vandalized ("unmanageable" - but not really). Yes, there are other lists that include some of this list and this list includes some of other lists. That's common. This list, however, is not a mere compilation of data from other lists nor is it merely a subcategory of another list. It is unique. My argument is not "What about article X?" My argument is that your "We don't do that" is plainly wrong: we do do that and nothing says we shouldn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Enough of the sarcasm please. It is unproductive to this discussion and only serves to possibly create a battleground atmosphere. Even though this comment you put under Djohns21 is actually responding to a post I made above that (I said we don't make un ending lists.) I will respond here to the earlier statement and to what is directly above this comment now. Perhaps I could have said "do not need such a list" as opposed to "do not make" such a list. Is that more clear then? Can you verify your claim that this is useful to Wikipedia? Does this list in anyway benefit the project and would the project be worse for losing it?. Also refer to my statement that just because we can does not mean we must. Take it as must/need/should however you will. It would be far more productive to merge entries from this list into the already existing lists that I mention before. If you need a complete listing of all those available lists you can do the work yourself. All I had to do was provide examples which I did.
      - -No one said there was not a female equivalent or that it would not be possible that someone created one. At no time was it mentioned that female superheroes was not notable. I would venture that it is possible that such a list would be redundant also as it still pertains to Djohns21's and Someone's earlier statements about the useless size. Between comic books, graphic novels, cartoons, anime, video games, etc etc... a list of this type as well as the male equivalent we are discussing here is simply too broad. That however would be for an AFD on the superheroines list. I find it hard to believe that those entries in others lists, including the articles I presume they link to, do not mention the character as male or female or entity, etc etc... Breaking it down into only comic book or cartoon, etc etc would be pointless as this can be much more easily accomplished by adding to the existing lists of comic characters, cartoons and what have you. If there is indeed a list missing (i.e. darkhorse characters or what have you) then we can create that article.
      - -The lists you posted have little to no relevance to this AFD. They are dealing with different issues. We are not specifying here about superheroes or villians without superpowers, nor teams and groups, nor debuts. That last in particular has no bearing and is not dealing with same type of issue. This AFD is about an article with the extremely large umbrella specifier of "male". Perhaps someone will bring up AFDs on those articles at some point. I am not a crystal ball and can't say.
      - -As far as your repeated mentions of FL it has no bearing. We aren't talking about notable living/deceased people which lists of that type would entail. Most people from or living in FL do not have mentions in published written work or television or etc etc. No one has mentioned that a list of people from FL would included "everyone" ever born as you keep trying to infer would pertain to this AFD. Look at WP:ENN if better clarification of what I am saying is needed. Pretty much by default any characters on this list we are currently discussing would have been written about, animated etc etc and published in one medium or another. That is a very large and nearly impossible number. And i am not saying any character anyone ever doodled in their notebook during biology would be included in this list. Again see WP:ENN
      - -"where are these lists?" Well if you missed my very first post might I suggest you go back and please read it. I said the entries in this list exist in those articles. Perhaps not all but just from quick browsing many and perhaps over half.
      - -Again please stop with the straw and ignore arguments. No one said anything about notability other than you. No one said anything about female superheroes not be needed or notable. Again my off hand comment about vandalism was used as if it was a debate point when I already pointed out it was not used as such. No one said every character any human being has ever drawn or created would be on this list as the FL comments suggests. And yes we do have guidelines and policies and helpful essays regarding what we, if not strictly shouldn't do, at the least should try to avoid doing. Look up the policies regarding redundancy, lists, (the SALAT Someone pointed out earlier is quite nice), what Wikipedia is not and what constitutes being a positive contribution to this project as opposed as what doesn't add value to the project. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the List of Male Superheroes for the last few weeks in researching frequency of certain apparel styles in superhero depictions, and have found it more useful than any other list I've run into on the web. I say: KEEP. Paulewagner (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user has only edited this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, Koavf. In my years of reading Wikipedia I have never had a prior personal reason to comment. The above is my first-ever. Is there an initiation ritual? :) Paulewagner (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment and welcome Hi Paulewagner and welcome to the AFD and wiki in general. While I cannot speak for another editor, I believe that Koavf was simply referring to a long standing practice on Wikipedia involving AFD debates. In this case the WP:MEAT rule would be the one to look at. In particular the sections which says "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion.". I do not believe in anyway that Koavf was actually accusing you of being anyone's puppet. This is just simple and common procedure on Wiki AFD pages. Again please don't take it in a negative fashion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so can we go ahead and close this? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfDs typically run for about a week. There's no deadline here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries my bad. My head wasn't paying attention to the calendar this week. Naturally we run for a week or more. For some reason I was thinking this was like 2 weeks ago lol. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple encyclopedias covering this topic including The encyclopedia of superheroes, The encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television, The superhero book: the ultimate encyclopedia of comic-book icons and Hollywood heroes. With sources like this, it will be easy to produce and maintain a list. Merging with the superheroine list would be sensible as some superheroes are sexless or change their sex (e.g. Robin and Vision) but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was never in question whether or not there would be sources. And merging the female list would take away the one thing making this list in any way possible- the male modifier that gives it some semblance of specialization. However the problem with size would only be increased. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not a problem. Do you realise that we have lists on Wikipedia with hundreds of thousands of entries, e.g. List of minor planets? Superheroes are comparatively few in number when considered as a specific genre per this definition. Warden (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment First- yes "size" in the terms of actual bytes and such is not a problem. However in terms of usefulness it counts and again see earlier statements that just because we can do something is not an argument that we should. Second- that is one definition and as earlier brought up the definition in itself can be grounds for debate. Third using a specific genre for the list then enters into what I have already mentioned on multiple posts that we already have lists for specific genres (nintendo, games, comics, etc etc). To pick any particular genre for this article would be to basically re create an already existing list with the small (sub)modifier of including only male characters. tymv Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The not useful argument is weak one and has been rebutted by the excellent example of Paulewagner. The usage statistics for this article are quite high and this further demonstrates its value to our readership. The list has already been given good structure by division into sections and so is compliant with WP:SALAT. If it grew to the point that it was too large to load easily then we would just split it into a list of lists using ordinary editing. These issues do not constitute a case for deletion. Warden (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Actually I'm sorry to say but PW's "rebuttal" as you call it does nothing. "I use it therefore in my own personality I rebut argument involving policy and consensus". ?? really? Nor does the usage statistic that you brought up. How many of those hits were from the same 6-10 users that have gone to the page just to try and touch it up? How many came to it by way of this AFD? Also, and I believe this is most telling for someone like me who "watches" this page, how many of those hits are simply from the plethora of vandals that come here to put their friends name on the list or otherwise be disruptive this particular project? Just by what I myself have seen through the watchlist and the edit history I would say the vandals are the most widely represented on the usage list, but then again that's just MHO from what I have seen. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily possible to define: it contains those for which there are Wikipedia articles. That's the very opposite of indiscriminate. A list containing all superheroes in all fiction regardless of notability would be indiscriminate . This is indeed no more infinite than the number of notable superheroes, and if we can make articles on them individually, we can certainly find room for them on a list, to bring them together in context--context which is impossible in a category. It's time we established a clarification of the guidelines on lists, that a list limited to those examples of the type that are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, is always appropriate, if the type is definable. Always. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um please see comment about straw argument earlier- notability was never an issue brought up by those voting for delete. Again read earlier statements about the existing lists. If we weed this down into comics, or cartoon or graphic novels, etc etc then we might as well simply add the entries on this page to those lists. Why make another list? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate and impossible to make this of good quality. What's next: List of male athletes? Literally thousands of entries could fit here. Better to focus on more discriminate categories with a more manageable number of entries. Dzlife (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Not at all indiscriminate: Notable superheroes (those with articles) is as discriminate as notable people from Florida. "Impossible to make of good quality"? I can't tell what your specific concern is here. Literally thousands of entries? Oh no! We have hundreds of such lists, including this beast which has been kept three times at AfD (yes, I know "article X" is not an argument, but neither is "I don't like potentially long lists"). - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Neither is the argument that because we can do something than we should. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to delete has nothing to do with whether or not can = should. The arguments Dzlife presented are indiscriminate (it's not), "impossible to make this of good quality" (what?) and it will be big (so what?). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when the argument to keep being used is that size doesn't matter because we can, then indeed that can be given a counter argument from the delete side. That's just how it works. The arguments brought up by myself and others is that "male" is too broad. Indiscriminate certainly- we aren't saying male comic book superheroes, male video game superheroes, or etc etc. This list is saying male superheroes in its entirety. Far too many mediums and possibilities to be considered "discriminate". tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad in scope for an encyclopedic article to emerge, per WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR. A more notable qualifier to superhero may make for an interesting list (such as List of Marvel Comics Superheros), but there really isn't anything special about being a male superhero and we surely don't need to group these people together just on account of being male superheros (I could see the case for female superheros, as this is primarily a male "profession"). As such, this is an nonencyclopedic cross-categorization, and our NOTDIR policy states that just having a cross category isn't considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Overly-broad lists such as this need to be deleted, not encouraged. DGG's suggestion about the criteria for lists above is not supported by policy or consensus. Them From Space 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the list is too broad in scope to be useful; most superheroes are male and there are very many of them in fiction. Such lists are maintainable in theory but rarely maintained, let alone useful, in practice. Sandstein 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Way too broad of a list. Joe Chill (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting article, something that people will look up for on wikipedia. Tony (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad in scope to be considered discriminate. WP:SALAT states that "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections". Not the same as a list of female superheroes, which is more specific and exceptional. This list has piled on all kinds of male characters indiscriminately. What does Seraph from the Matrix have in common with Zorro, Luigi, and a Hindu god? Barely anything. A more discriminate list topic might have more hope of drawing together a useful and verifiable category. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reboss[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, or any sources at all that aren't blatantly advertising the company. Article has apparently been edited by someone with a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no independent coverage at all - significant or otherwise. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. From what I can see, the content has already been almost directly merged into the main article. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the 2011 England riots[edit]

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

While eventually a WP:SUMMARY article on the causes of the riots might be needed, at this moment this article represents a WP:POVFORK to eliminate material concerning causes from the main article 2011 England riots. There is not enough material to justify this as a stand-alone article, nor is there a consensus in the main article to create a WP:SUMMARY fork. As it stands, it is also a WP:COATRACK magnet in which to hang WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This article should be deleted, and the RS on the causes remain on the article on the riots themselves. Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient content for a breakout article, adequately covered in 2011 England riots#Causes. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with most of the criticism made of this article. However, I think the subject currently falls between two stools - too much for the main article and too little for a separate article. Give it time. See if it can be whipped into shape. If not, I would delete it then (after copying the valuable stuff to the main article). Yaris678 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point and agree to an extent, the problem is that until months or even years from now, all the sources for the causes will be highly partisan or news - making quality an issue. Essentially this article is a big red target poster saying "EDIT WAR HERE PLEASE" :). While so does the riot article itself, one article focuses the discussion, two articles on the same topic forks the discussion, hence the appellation POV fork. Could that make you reconsider? --Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for the moment. I agree that over the next few weeks there's going to be enough analysis of this in reliable sources to warrant a separate article, but I don't think this is ready for the mainspace in the meantime. Do not delete it, because in the final product we will need to preserve attribution.—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this position and argument.--Djjr (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The BBC article demonstrates that good sources for this topic already exist. The topic might best be dealt with in the main article still but that would be a matter of merger not deletion. Note that this is such a hot topic that editors of the main article complain of edit conflicts. There is therefore some functional value in splitting the topic into appropriate sub-topics such as this. Warden (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article does not seem to be about causes of the riots but about what some people want to blame for them. Various authors have their pet hates whether it be fragmented families, racist police, the education system, government cuts etc. and they have duly produced articles saying it is their own particular pet hate that is to blame. The title of the article is therefore misleading as it provides no analysis of the causes just of what people want to blame. Sometime around the end of the year there will be some articles appearing in sociological journals, but for now we might as well say it's all Jimbo's fault.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So that it can become a real, quality article, as it should some day. Right now it's just a bunch of OR, each POV constructed from, or of primary sources and statements by political operatives. When it comes time to create a real article from quality sources, the editors will never be able to get all of the initial junk out of there. I've seen this happen elsewhere. So delete it so that they can build a real article when suitable quality secondary sources become available. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the question on the many people's lips, why? Therefore I see this page as important, but it needs improving. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The causes of the riots are important, but this page should be improved, if not improved, should be merged with 2011 England riots
Delete. This is not an article on the causes of the riots, this is a collection of cherry-picked quotes from news articles about what various individuals said the causes of the riots were, often in the service of their own political gain. We don't have the scholarly or historical distance for an article like this yet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have an england riots 2011 article and i dont think this one is needed Tony (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 England riots#Reactions for now. This information is mostly encyclopaedic but easily condensable into a few paragraphs and/or bullet points. Depending on how the reaction pans out, there may in the future be enough material for a stand-alone article, but at the moment this is just one of many reactions to the riots. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge into main article. David (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't really get the POV argument. Present all the opinions and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Maybe rename to something like Debates on the causes of the 2011 England riots as some are a little fringe. Francium12 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because part of NPOV is WP:UNDUE - the bar for inclusion in a "debate" or "criticism" article not coming from a WP:SUMMARY, but rather created on an apparent whim of an editor, is basically a WP:POVFORK that forks the debate into separate article. So neutral presentation on a non-neutral article premise is to be deleted. This "debate" or "causes" should be in the main article, and discussed there, until real books and real research, rather than comentariat quotes or proxies for an editor's pov, are the available sources. As a news article, this would be timely, and would make a great WikiNews article with a little reworking, but this is not WikiNews, and we write encyclopedia articles, not news articles. --Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it's nothing more than a platform for OR and POV pushing. FactController (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason in deleting this sufficient article. seems like wikipedians are in a deletion frenzy concerning this subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FactController etc - an unencyclopaedic collection of random opinion, and no possibility of ever being anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Less POV and OR stuff. It needs to be fleshed out to.Wipsenade (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too early for anybody to know the causes of an unfinished event. Besides, it's just OR and POV and conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is too early to know the causes of the event, this article is about documenting the encyclopaedically notable speculation about the causes that is already happening. It will document research into the causes - academic studies, journalistic investigation, etc, when it happens (and that it will happen is more certain than the 2012 Olympics happening in London). Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, and WP:SUMMARY allows that, but when that happens, we create the article organically. As it stands, this article is a coatrack and povfork, and its creating was not the result of an organic need in the main article, but the boldness of an editor who barely discussed this - a boldness that while welcomed in the abstract we should revert via deletion. Forking this actually decreased the quality of the main article, so we ended up with two less-than-stellar articles, rather than one passable one. --Cerejota (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everyone has a theory of why it happened, and this does not make it encyclopaedic. seems to be a motley collection of ideologues, interest groups seeking to raise their profile and politicians trying to score points Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is about the causes of a highly relevant event. Ohconfucius above is right when he says there are many conflicting opinions and statements on this event but that's only to be expected with something of this type. We can document the public statements like an encyclopaedia should and avoid giving a biased viewpoint. Unixtastic (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this a "highly relevant event"?! It's just a bunch of teenagers causing damage and stealing stuff. It has no deep social or political meaning whatsoever. What makes it even less significant is that the whole thing immediately died down once it started to rain, proving that nobody was trying to make any point at all. That kind of negates it all. They were just sheep-like copycats doing what they saw on TV/Youtube, without knowing why. Give it a year or so and people won't even remember what this event was or why it happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arnswer Because it is leading to a major crack down on things like incitment to riot via Blackberry Messenger.82.11.105.195 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge back into main article. Unnecessary splitting of content; this can be handled as a section within the main article. Avoid Avoid necessary splits. Neutrality^talk 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per User:Neutrality, this distracts from working on the Causes section in the main article, which isn't exactly overloaded to the point where a split is necessary. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIZE which indicates that that article is certainly too big. It has been growing steadily and has spawned other sub-articles such as Timeline of 2011 England riots. Warden (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced and a huge topic of discussion; also likely to be a continuing issue due to its effect on stock markets worldwide. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like it might end in a merge. I was going to expand the article but am unprepared to do so while the threat of deletion hangs over the article as it is possible my efforts might be in vain. Something of a Catch 22… Quickbeam44 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you make a draft of your proposed expansion in your userspace and link to it here, talk:Causes of the 2011 England riots and Talk:2011 England riots. If this page is kept your work can be integrated into this article, if it is merged or deleted it can be integrated into the main article just as easily. See Help:Userspace draft if you are unsure how to do this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be willing to contribute to building this article if is kept. I believe there is sufficient information as to the causes of the riots. These riots are quite clearly a multitude of factors and I feel its own page is warranted. Topics such as economy factors, 'moral decay', organised crime, greed culture and youth disenfranchisement are just some causes mentioned which can be expanded on. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Largely per Roscelese. There's nothing in this article that can't be covered in the main riots article. It's little but a few cherry picked quotes, and at this stage has little substance to warrant it's own article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. fish&karate 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Gupta[edit]

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

Another Nitin Gupta. This one seems to fail WP:PROF ("Best Paper" at SIGMOD doesn't seem to qualify under criterion 2). Miracle Pen (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also add, if this survives AfD, can the closing admin move it to Nitin Gupta (the page's salted). Thanks. Miracle Pen (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to what i have read it sounds like he is only a student and not a notable scientist so he should be deleted. Tony (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability seems to have not yet been attained by this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I think it's pretty clear,and I'd suggest SNOW delete, but we should wait another day just in case there's an argument to be made. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does not pass WP:SCHOLAR in any way. — Finemann (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AND Salt This article was re-created again, this time right after being deleted via afd. I think it's time to salt it. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a different Nitin Gupta. (There's even a third one at Nitin Kumar Gupta.) I only found this one by chance. The other Nitin Gupta article is salted. Miracle Pen (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions for Nitin Gupta in Google and Yahoo searches. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas Consulting[edit]

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

This is a puff piece, pure and simple. The language is not neutral, and there are no references to reliable sources that establish any kind of notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, its a NN company trying to drum up some business. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with LonelyBeacon. Tony (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from their website and job listings pages. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was so hoping for a firm of theological consultants, but no....... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mercaldo[edit]

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

Article barely contains a claim to notability; it certainly doesn't have a single reliable source, and for obvious reasons, I think: the person is not notable. Having written some books is not in itself a guarantee for notability, and I found no indication that there are meaningful reviews of them. Google News seems to agree with me. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, NN head of a NN company. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can also find no evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Stanley[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion, Stanley fails until he plays an international or a NRL match. Mattlore (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much information, need more information to keep. Tony (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't played an NRL match yet, so fails WP:RLN and I couldn't find any significant coverage either in the article or gnews, so fails WP:GNG as well. Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - our notability threshold in the WP:RL is very clear. He needs to have played first grade or an international. He hasn't. -Sticks66 13:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a strong discussion of policy, but there's clearly no consensus indicated for deletion. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Gatekeeper[edit]

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

The creator said on my talk page that this software is very famous among other things. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNU Gatekeeper is an important pice of software, and I think it does deserve a page in Wikipedia. If you want to call it "famous" is in the eye of the beholder, but it is recognized in the industry and the new release for example just got mentioned in the Wainhouse Reasearch Bulletin along with all the news from the commercial vendors. If you search Google for "GnuGk", you'll find a lot of references where it is used. The GnuGk website has a page with a number of well known institutions who are using it. --Willamowius (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When searching Google Scholar, you'll find over 50 references and citation for "GNU Gatekeeper": http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=%22GNU+Gatekeeper%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.233.45 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keeper this one, in my view jamesgibbon 21:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Numerous citations in Google Scholar and other reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it should be keeped. It's an important software in network industry.--MagicDesigner (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Also I think Joe Chill's operation is not proper. According to policy, on case of WP:N, we should use {{notability}} template and then follow other notability procedures. AfD is not proper for current case. --Mountain (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Joe Chill didn't follow the proper procedures listed on WP:FAILN. I don't see any notification for the creator, nor a {{notability}} tag on the article before he nominating the article for deletion. It is also not good to nominate an article for deletion immediately with notability reasons but ignore the truth that the article has 3 other languages. --PhiLiP (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of Search engine results by Google scholar.--Wasami007 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Tijuana Reserves[edit]

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

Declined PROD by article author that was endorsed by a 2nd editor. PROD Reason was "Per WP:FOOTYN team playing in league that does not appear to be eligible for National Cup" Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hasteur (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reserve teams can be notable, but no evidence as to why this one is. Giant Snowman 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, they can be notable but there is nothing here that indicates this one is. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with the above comment. Tony (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Club Tijuana. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improvement in page sufficient, and discussion indicates keep closure. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akal Security[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to include the coverage it has received in national and regional newspapers.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is very large, very unusual and very interesting. Coverage in the New York Times also shows that it is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your "New York Times" coverage is a link to the Wikipedia article about the New York Times, formatted as an external link. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article referred to appears to be this one: Sikh Group Finds Calling in Homeland Security. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and keep. In depth coverage at NPR and NYT. Reasonably neutral text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a notable company so i think keep. Tony (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universities in Washington Ranking[edit]

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

Regurgitation of an article. Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Rather obviously a subjective list from a single source. Why not Best seafood restaurants in Washington or Best places in Washington to walk your dog??? Carrite (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even a ranking, just a sorted list according to a standard classification. There's no encyclopedic value in having suh a list for a single state. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no encyclopedic value in having one for every state either! The subject of ranking universities is well handled by easily discovered sources that are about ranking universities. Ornithikos (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Ceccarelli[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Has not appeared in a match in a fully professional league yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as GiantSnowman. Adam4267 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays for a notable side so i think its a keep from me. Tony (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the player passing WP:BIO. As to footballing notability, WP:NFOOTBALL states explicitly that being registered to a notable team isn't enough: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." The player has to play, and Mr Ceccarelli hasn't, yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to being an unreferenced BLP, the player in question has not played in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Has not appeared in a fully professional league. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nothing has substantially changed since the previous discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, and then salt it. Number 5 7 08:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No Football League appearances, no significant coverage, does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 09:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, as above. Giant Snowman 13:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing has changed, still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Salt for good measure. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above it should be deleted. Tony (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong sourced arguments to keep. Notability is not temporary, though occasionally consensus does change. In this case, it doesn't. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Thigpen Perry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician's wife; fails WP:NOT#INHERITED Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references cited indicate that she is notable in her own right. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - how? I see nothing that is not from the penumbra of her husband and his office. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the arguments and evidence presented in the prior AfD, which correctly concluded that there's sufficient evidence of her independent notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as coverage by reliable third-party sources of her and her activities, not simply as a wife, more than meet the verifiability and notability thresholds. (Let it snow.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable wife of politician. Polozooza (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete While some other users have claimed above that she is notable in her own right, they fail to define how. Apart from being a politican's wife, there is nothing notable about her, at least not in the article. She has a master of science degree in nursing, that is hardly notable. She is a member of the methodist church. Not notable either. Apart from being married to Rick Perry, there is nothing notable at all about this lady. Delete and redirect to Rick Perry.Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (My previous comments were out of line and I have removed them so as not to distract from the topic at hand. My apologies to Orange Mike and the other editors.) Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply to gratuitous ad hominem attack - Veriss, I'm proud to say that I've nominated for deletion, or argued for the deletion of, dozens of articles about non-notable persons whose politics I find more sympatico than Rick Perry. In fact, I've been assailed for it. Your attack on me for being honest and upfront about my own politics subverts the very concept of full disclosure, and is counter-productive in the extreme, bringing utter irrelevancies into this discussion and violating our expectation of civility in discourse. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of Wikipedia's policies about comments on others. By bringing up to discussion the political opinions of the user who nominated the article for deletion, you violate the rules of Wikipedia. What we are interested in here is arguments for or against the notability of the subject, not your personal thoughts about the political views of others. Comment on the subject, not on other users! Jeppiz (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject more than meets WP:GNG. And yes, the sources cover her because she's married to the governor. But they do cover her and they cover her extensively, which meets Wikipedia's requirements of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V & WP:RS. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 07:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has done nothing notable on her own. OrangeMike is correct that WP:NOT#INHERITED is the applicable guideline here. The third-party coverage is directly related to her husband, and perhaps that's what's causing the confusion. The wife of a U.S. President rates an article. The wife of a major party nominee, quite likely. She is neither. She is the wife of a declared candidate. At this point, the information belongs in the Rick Perry article, and only there. It's there, but oddly it's hidden in the Early life section. The article is missing the usual Personal life section at the end, which is used to include spouse, children, personal interests, activities and awards. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. To me this is baffling deletionism. As the 2012 campaign heats up, the interest in the candidates' spouses and families will increase astronomically. Why delete an article that is likely to be re-created later? Moreover, she has been the first lady of the nation's second-most populous state for a decade. How is she not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Please note the two AfD votes already taken in 2010; the result both times was Keep. Has something changed since then to make Thigpen Perry less notable? Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, she became more notable after Perry's announcement of his candidacy, which occurred around the same time of this nomination. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a nursing school named after her, which was covered by an independent source. She has had other coverage of her own activities, independent of the Perry administration. I think she's notable enough to have her own article. Loves Macs (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is there any way to salt a Keep so it doesn't keep getting nominated for deletion? As I pointed out at AFD #2, she's got a major school of nursing named after her, how much more notability do you want? --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zenergo[edit]

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

Not notable enough to satisfy WP:CORP Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. It does not fall under WP:CORP (Salad King) talk 09:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofthesalads (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete: Per nom. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an activity and interest-focused online service designed for consumers to manage, plan and expand their social life in their real world. References to "Killer Startups" and other online trade spamblogs do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from a bizjournal article announcing their launch. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lowry[edit]

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

Proposed deletion removed with comment: notable individual in wargaming history and in the development of D&D; take to AfD But I'm still unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to verify his notability. Also is a long-term unreferenced BLP. The-Pope (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Turns up nothing useable in search. Google for "Lowry's Enterprises" also gives only 5 insignificant hits. Probably not notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I'm not sure. Is this a different Don Lowry from the one who wrote a series of Civil War history books, 1991–1995? He seems to have made quite a few contributions over his career. RJH (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although I could not find significant coverage of the subject of this BLP, I was able to verify that he holds (or held) the copyrights to three of the games/manuals mentioned in the article here. The source was added to the article. The lack of more on-line sources is likely related to most of his work occuring in the early 1970s. J04n(talk page) 02:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a citation to a biographical source which verifies some of the basic facts. Worst case is that this would be merged into some article about the early history of D&D and wargaming and that would be a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important contributor to the development of gaming. Leutha (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Citation added isn't yet sufficient but subject seems notable for his early role in the development of early D&D products. Being the wargaming publisher whose stonewalling caused EGG to create TSR seems like a minor point of notability by itself, but that's just my opinion. BusterD (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Sampler[edit]

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

Non-notable, limited-release comp. As argued before, limited-release albums are actually less notable and much harder to substantiate. E.g. Allmusic mentions it, but doesn't even review it. PROD was denied on the basis that someone paid a lot of money for it several years ago. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (I couldn't find anything in a Google search except fan sites and listings of the band's works, but no impartial reviews or anything else usable). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patna Half Marathon[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP. Seemingly new race not taking place until October (although there is a mention of a race in March 2010 in The Hindu).. Sole reference given is a calendar one line mention. Peridon (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Magic (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band fails notability guidelines and also fails WP:BAND Mo ainm~Talk 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 00:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can someone verify the label of the albums this band has released over the years? I listened to samples of their music and watched some of their videos. Their productions struck me as more polished and professional than one would expect from a group that self-publishes their works. Even if self-published, it is still possible to achieve notability, such as the long-standing Brad Sucks article (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indytronic Records and Ministry of Magic. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I like the sound of their stuff well enough, this fails all the WP:BAND tests; apparently self-publishers; they doesn't show any evidence of the kind of subterranean fame that the more notable filk musicians like Dr. James or Tom Smith have. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orange Mike, I found nothing either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Shea[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:SECONDARY. No cites on GS or Google Books. Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article with which everyone seems to want this merged to is already borderline indiscriminate. Adding to that will make this problem worse. Consensus seems to be that information in this article is useful to have around, however, so merging in future is a possibilty. — Joseph Fox 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most weeks on UK Singles Chart[edit]

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

Prod was removed with the reasoning, "Why has my article been put up for deletion. It is no different from all the other lists to do with British music statistics. I started at 40 weeks as not many uk singles reach this milestone; would it be better to put 52 weeks instead? This is no different from the Biggest selling British acts of all time list starting at 50 million sales, surely this and hundreds of other lists are meaninless then also?" Why 40 weeks? No notable reason is given for why 40 weeks was chosen. Unnecessary list compared to similar better put together lists. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered to leave this on here as this site is obviously bias in what goes on here. As for better put together lists: I've seen some terrible lists on here with incorrect information but this has not been deleted. I shall keep my information that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet as a complete list & all my other information & you can stick your wikipedia right up your pathetic administrative sad lonely lives arses!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingman69 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into UK Singles Chart records and statistics. From what I can see, that article has a spot for artists whose combined works have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts, but nothing yet for individual singles that have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts. This seems like a worthy branch of statistics to me; Elvis has had the most weeks on the chart as an artist, but Sinatra's "My Way" according to the info from this article, has the record for most time on the chart, even though it never reached number one. I think that's interesting, and not already covered in the UK Singles Chart records and statistics. If there is concern about the arbitrary number of 40 weeks on the charts (I personally don't see a problem with it) than the list could be reduced to those singles that achieved 52 weeks on the charts, which would both give a rational for the number - one full year - and which would make the list shorter and more suitable to be merged into UK Singles Chart records and statistics. The article's creator seems pretty upset about the article's listing here on AfD and has moved the page to Wikipedia is a waste of time submitting anything and blanked the page. I am going to endeavor to move the page back and unblank it so that this discussion will be less confusing to those just joining. I am sorry if you were offended, Vikingman69, by the consideration for deletion; it is not personal and we very much value your contributions, even if this page does end up being deleted. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised at his behavior. Just because this is an AfD does not mean that the article will be deleted for sure. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - seems like a really interesting article and i think this is the type of thing people will look up and expect to be on wikipedia. Tony (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT Secret ^account 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, logical, useful list. And we really do need to do something about the "Wikipedia is a waste of time submitting anything" effect. Deletionism kills new encyclopedians. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into UK Singles Chart records and statistics. There don't seem to be individual articles for lists like this, but this is valuable information which I'm surprised isn't already somewhere else. If this is to be kept in the current article, I think we need to think of a better title for it. I also agree with Carrite about not pushing away new editors. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the title definitely needs changing. also the OCC publishes 'weeks on chart' in it's archives so this article could definitely be better and more reliably sourced. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it doesn't seem like it deserve a standalone article, yet this type of information is usually convered in standard music articles. Secret ^account 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Safiel (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LouFest[edit]

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

Seems be very borderline on WP:Notability so I will at least take this to AfD and see what happens. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of guidance on Wikipedia as to the particular subject of music festivals in general. Looking at both the articles in existence and also at the AfD's for articles that have previously been deleted, I don't see any reasonable guide. My personal view is that notability is local only and this is also a recently established festival, so I will go with Delete. Safiel (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this is a bit of a grey area. I eventually declined speedy on the grounds that there was at least some coverage, and have advised the author to find something a bit more widespread. The list of bands seems pretty well blue linked, so there should be something. We'll see. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm involved in that I have responded to the author's request at WP:FEED, and have added sources to the article. One of the more in-depth articles about it is this in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which, according to it's Wikipedia article, is one of the largest newspapers in Midwestern USA, this is hardly a minor local newspaper. The GNG does not stipulate that the reliable sources be national or international. Including this source, which I added since this nom, and the other sources of the article, I think that this article may meet the GNG. Quasi human | Talk 20:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added 2 additional references of national prominence. this one from National Public Radio and this one from the CBS affiliate station in St. Louis. Rtoma321 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please let me know what else i can do to satisfy the GNG guidelines and establish the necessary notability. Rtoma321 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining to a Keep on the grounds that St Louis newspapers are rather wider in coverage than (for example) The Downby-in-the-Swamp Wringer, local being a relative term in newspapers, and also because of the number of blue links in the list. Notability doesn't cascade, but this many bands wouldn't play at a village fete. Peridon (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peridon and my comment above. Quasi human | Talk 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep Question mark on wp:notabiliity. Lack of attendance figures in the article or even on the event's web site raises questions. Also the fact that so much much of the article talks about tangents rather than directly about the topic also raises questions. But the article is only a week old and so shortages in the article do not mean shortages in the subject. Putting more encyclopedic content about the subject in the article would make notability less mysterious/questioned. Give the editors a few months to flesh it out. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add to that that the 2011 festival will apparently be happening in a couple of weeks, it is possible that more coverage will arise in its aftermath (admittedly a WP:CRYSTAL argument). I will try to improve the article to address those concerns. I have had a look at the references in the article, and can find no mention of attendance figures, except for a vague mention in the St. Louis Jewish Light ref, which says that attendance was "solid, but maybe not quite what [the organisers] hoped for".[10] Attendance numbers would be nice, but seem to be unavailable at the moment. Quasi human | Talk 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to provisional keep and withdrawing current nomination Clearly is not going to be a consensus to delete here. Will wait for the 2011 LouFest to occur and may renominate if a serious question of notability still exists. Safiel (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Alphanes[edit]

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

Not notable on his own. Herp Derp (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There were no sources referring to the name "Independent Alphanes" which appeared to be an assumption by the article creator from the data given in the source. I have added another sourced and moved the article to it's correct name.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make it one sentence in the South Sudan article. No indication or wp:notability. Basically there is one RW notable factoid (first person born in the newly-created country). So make it one sentence in that country's article. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Bowen[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. There are a few trivial mentions here but nothing to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero references. No indication of wp:notability. My guess is that borderline WP:Notabilitiy is a possibility, but the editors have done zero to establish it during the 4 years of the article's existence. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I say delete. After a couple minutes I can't bring up any RS about this guy on google. NickCT (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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