Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 7 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Those arguing for keeping this article couldn't counter the WP:CRYSTAL argument. Feel free to recreate the article when reviews and production info are available and can be sourced back to reliable sources. – sgeureka 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. I could not find any reviews of the episode (as the episode has not aired yet), nor any production history, or much any information at all except who is in the episode, its name, and when it airs. Perhaps the article was created a bit presumptuously. Episode has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources (WP:GNG) Odie5533 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. For that matter, the description happens to be a copyright violation- it's copied directly from . Unless any more information can be added to the article, I suggest deleting it. It can be recreated in a month when there will be more content available for it. --Slon02 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I know that back in our "every TV episode is notable" days, an entire Template:Futurama episodes worth of these was created, long before the series was revived and long before there were entertainment wikis, and I have a feeling that on August 26 at 10:00 (9 central!) people will be typing away with their observations, but I notice that there's not yet an article . All of the articles in the template need to be considered for a move over to a place that is more tolerant of original research and doesn't worry about real world notability. Mandsford 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Futurama Wiki does indeed have a page here. No useful content there though, and the Infosphere also has nothing. Given the current lack of information about the episode, it's not ready for an article just yet. Reach Out to the Truth 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Guys you're have nothing to do? Wait until August 27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWFlash (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will this episode get significant coverage in reliable independent sources? I don't know. I don't know what they'll say about it. I think I agree that every television series that airs on a major network is notable, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree that every episode of every television series is notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There will be as much coverage as the other articles when the episode airs. Seems entirely ridiculous to not have an article for one episode, but have an article for every other. Maybe it's premature, but I see little gain in deleting it, only to bring it back in a couple of weeks. It's just extra work, unnecessary strain, that's going to be undone anyway. --.:Alex:. 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an upcoming episode that is airing THIS MONTH. It's not far away and there will soon be plenty of information about it as a result. There's no question of whether or not it's a real episode or anything like that. A lot of people will want to know that the upcoming episode contains the guest stars listed on the page -that alone is surely reason enough to keep it and add to it as more information is available rather than deleting it and creating a new page in 20 days.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just added some information to the article. It's now far larger than articles such as next week's episode: A Clockwork Origin -and nobody complained about that article. Omega cyber turnip (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like deletion for the sake of it. Yes, you can make a valid argument to remove it for now, but I fail to see how that helps the encyclopedia or anyone else. Article contains verifiable information and will clearly receive plenty of additional coverage to demonstrate notability in the very near future. Perhaps it shouldn't technically have been created quite yet, but as it's here it may as well stay there. ~ mazca 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

2012 CFL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2010 season has barely begun, isn't this jumping the gun a bit? 2 says you, says two 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Several articles link to this season, so I think that it's important that it links somewhere. It has the same information as the 2011 season, so it's not for a lack of info. Cmm3 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete The articles that link have to do with the expectation that the Winnipeg Blue Bombers new stadium will be ready in 2012, and that (not updated in nearly a year) speculation that a new Ottawa team would play in 2012. The others links are placeholders , for the 100th Grey Cup and in a template on 2011 CFL season. If a franchise was awarded for '12 there might be something to say, but there's no reason to create an article if there's nothing to report. I'd note that we don't have anything yet to say about the 2012 NFL season either. Mandsford 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3)#"Party Pooper Pants". Smerge all sourceable content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Party Pooper Pants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable episode, no sources found. Only hits in Gnews were TV.com which is user submitted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

George Nathaniel Henry Peters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about an non-notable author who has written one or two books about pre-millennialism. — Parent5446 ☯ 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. One of the most highly notable religious eschatologists known throughout history. Although, the article should probably be renamed George N.H. Peters, as this was the name he wrote under, and most people with interest wouldn't know to look under his full name. The research and works he completed are classics in the study of premillennialism. The subject clearly meets criteria established under WP:AUTHOR. A collection of his works and research papers are held by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives. As well, there are numerous resources available that establish his notability. These are a few. Cindamuse (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Six weeks have elapsed since the first AfD, and no one has been particularly interested in improving the article. Of the two three links above (I missed the middle link while in 'edit' mode), only the first is of any value in establishing notability. The PDF file itself states that Peters "lived in relative obscurity" and that he is primarily known for only one book; there is a single biographical page which reads like a eulogy, and a list of Peters' writings, most of which were apparently unpublished ("no record has been found that they were published"). The second link is a review of The Theocratic Kingdom—by an author who is also apparently not notable—that discredits Peters and his book. The third link is an ad from a publishing company trying to sell The Theocratic Kingdom, not an impartial site acknowledging Peters' notability. The existence of a book does not automatically make either the book or its author 'notable'. Most of the other authors listed on Schoettle Publishing Company's website have not warranted their own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article survives the AfD, I wouldn't have any problem with Cindamuse's suggestion to rename (per WP:COMMON) if he is better known as "George N. H. Peters" (with the proper spacing).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Better still retain the present title and create "George N. H. Peters" as a redirect to it (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject of this article meets the first three criteria for inclusion. 1. Peters is an important figure in the eschatological study of premillennialism. He was not only cited during his lifetime, but continues to be cited over a hundred years after his death. 2. A hundred years after his death, his works continue to be published. He is known for his extensive research and presentation of the theological theory of premillennialism. 3. He created a significant and well-known body of work that has been presented in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews for well over a hundred years. 4. While his work is represented in a permanent collection by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives, I don't know if this meets the fourth criteria, since the criteria states representation in galleries or museums. Cindamuse (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Jeffro77-- Can't find evidence that this is a notable book and no other grounds for notability are asserted Vartanza (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as per recent AFD outcome and as above. No time limit on article improvement, especially such a short interval. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Jeffro77 --78.101.33.213 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — 78.101.33.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Given his lone other contribution, his intent here appears simply to offset my !vote out of spite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Some expert attention could possibly make a decent article of this; listing in Category:Articles needing expert attention might help. Somewhat hampered by books with snippet views or no previews in Google Books, but +peters +"theocratic kingdom" turns up a number of hits, some of which might attest to notability within premillenialism/Biblical studies, a sampling of which follows: Short bio in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography. In Hal Lindsey's The Road to the Holocaust, TK called by Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, "most important single work on Biblical predictive prophecy"; Peters called "The author of the widely used Theocratic Kingdom" in George W. Dollar History of Fundamentalism in America; Robert Paul Lightner in Last Days Handbook calls TK "a classic in defense of premillenialism"; TK "an exhaustive and convincing study" in In word and deed: evangelism and social responsibility; "The only serious attempt" to discuss a certain Biblical passage in The coming of the Lord: will it by premillennial?; TK "the 'grandfather' work on Bible prophecy" in An introduction to classical evangelical hermeneutics; "classic work" in The millennial kingdom by John Walvoord; TK "greatest work on prophetic interpretation ever written" by Lewis Sperry Chafer (taken from blurb on ad for reprint); "the most complete and exhaustic discussion of the important subject of which it treats that has been prepared" by James H. Brookes (advance testimonial for original printing); "a most comprehensive, exhaustic and standard work on all points relating to eschatology" in The Homiletic Monthly. Cited for one of the "prominent" usages of some phrase by Jerry Falwell in Liberty commentary on the New Testament. Presbyterian journal indicates some other book was written in the 1970s "to relate Peters' work on the theocratic kingdom of JEsus Christ to today's generation" but snippet doesn't reveal what one. Looks like there may have been a dissertation on it as well; there's a hit in Comprehensive Dissertation Index, 1861-1972: Philosophy and religion anyway, but no preview. Difficult to judge if there is significant coverage without taking more time, and very probably having to use the library rather than relying solely on the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no reason in keeping this article, unless someone can seriously improve it. Personally, I think we have given enough time for improvements to be made. I say delete it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think its clear from the comment just above that he was significant within his sphere. I urge Willthacheerleader18 to expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It is always difficult to judge a stub on AFD. However, this discussion has produced two lengthy comments on the notability of his Theocratic kingdom. Is there any hope of either of these contributors expanding the article or converting it inot an article on that book? Sorry, not my subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not my field either, but he seems to be a victim of living in a pre-internet age so that there are few online sources. It's not doing any harm. Could be moved though. Chris (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that supporters of Peters here are very quick to say that the he was 'extremely significant' and that the article must be retained. However, as was seen after the previous AfD, those same people are much less interested in improving the article beyond a stub. If the article can actually be improved, then by all means do so. Based on what has been presented, Theocratic Kingdom would be a suitable source for articles relating to premillenialism, however he doesn't seem to be especially notable beyond that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early under the snowball clause - unsalvageably unencyclopedic promotional essay. ~ mazca 22:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Best tourist destinations of pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR essay Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by User:NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography based upon two human interest stories. Athletic and performing arts accomplishments do not meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER respectively. Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Brown (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability shown. Does not seem to meet requirements for WP:PROF, or anything else for that matter. Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

POV EDU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable -- I'm not coming up with anything for this in Google or Google Books ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is an article about using wearable cameras or video devices in education. There are links in the article such as this one which indicates work is being done on this but it does not appear to be a substantial field that has attracted a lot of notice. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ram Surat Rai Rajbhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the WP:POLITICIAN guidance as this person never held an elected office. The article was created in 2007 and has yet to include any sources so addressing this problem and the evident original research seems unlikely in the near future. Fæ (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Victor Ciutacu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not evident. Only sources provided are a search at his own newspaper and his personal blog. Google Web search gives lots of hits, but they seem to be self-published or directory entries. News search returns mostly hits from his own paper, but admittedly I have a hard time assessing the Romanian hits. Favonian (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack#Chatterbox FM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reed Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reliable sources, "Reed is most famous for his appearance in GTA 3" Hekerui (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to The Riddle-Master of Hed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Morgon (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Min Kwan Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't meet a criterion of WP:ACADEMIC Hekerui (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though there are twice as many "keep" !votes as "delete" !votes, most of the "keep" !votes are not grounded in policy. Their rationales include WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO, and references to his current "fame." However, although a few of the "keep" !votes mention the possibility that he will not "remain a low-profile individual," they do not provide evidence that this does not fall under WP:BLP1E. There are many reliable sources available but nearly all are related to the event. Even the song, Auto-Tune the News, is related to the event; correctly, it does not have its own article but is rather a redirect. In the future, if the subject continues to receive coverage, recreation will be permitted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Antoine Dodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As prurient a BLP1E as I can imagine. Currently unsourced other than to Youtube videos. Note that this has already been speedied twice (the two previous deletions are unrelated). – iridescent 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And we do cover that at University of Florida Taser incident. I don't see a need to rename this to Huntsville, Alabama attempted rape news report incident but I suppose we will if we must.--Milowent • 00:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
BLP1E says A person is non-notable "...If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." You're apparently only looking at the "single event" part. If a person is high profile, whether from a single event or multiple events, he's notable. Rapidosity (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO the wording of BLP1E is atrocious, "...or is likely to remain low profile" - how are we supposed to make this assessment? I haven't been editing heavily in the last 2 years but since when did Knowledge become a crystal ball? - filelakeshoe 09:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
We wait until the subject becomes high profile for reasons not connected with the one event and then we create an article. Thincat (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It doens't matter whether the person is high profile for one events or more than one event. He's high profile so he gets an article. Rapidosity (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That only applies if the person is low profile. He's not. He's high profile. Rapidosity (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Momentary blip on the internet landscape, not a sufficiently significant subject for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Dobson is now relevant as media personality and becoming hard news like it or not. Covered by major news outlets (NPR, Washington Post, CBS News) regarding social commentary on rape, racial impact and status as internet sensation. Stars in pop song currently #3 on Apple's Itunes r&b charts. Internet videos attracted well over 7 million viewers within ten days. Knowledge without Dobson is unaware and incomplete. — 68.238.191.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC).
The song is now #25 on the i-tunes "all songs" chart.--Milowent • 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
So what? Do we have a itunes makes you notable, no they don't. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an itunes doesn't make you notable, no they don't. I was just noting how his fame was increasing during the course of this AfD.--Milowent • 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the song by him, or about him?Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is credited to him as the artist, as they lifted his interview into the song.--Milowent • 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep him! Why would you even consider deleting his Wiki page? He's a sensation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.140.231 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Famous for one thing" is still famous. You misunderstand BLP1E. It's talking about a person that is a "low-profile individual," not a famous person. Dodson is not a low-profile individual. He's famous. He's notable, as a result of the single event. Notable is notable. If you read , it says "When an individual is significant for their 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." So, see? It's taking it for granted that it is appropriate for a person that is notable for a single event to be represented on Knowledge. It's just a matter of whether to make the article about him or the event. Rapidosity (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saccharin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Saccharine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Also, "saccharine" is an adjective, not a noun. Neither of the two references support its use as a noun meaning "sweetener" — the first uses it consistently as an adjective, and the second obviously refers to sodium saccharin. —Keenan Pepper 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is in footnote #2 of Saccharin. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. WP:OR/WP:MADEUP. "Saccharine" is an adjective meaning "sweet" -- AFAIK it has no technical meaning. The nom is correct in saying that the literature mentioned in the article uses the word (a) consistently as an adjective, and (b) as a misspelling of sodium saccharin.-- Radagast3 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to saccharin, move that footnote #2 up into the body of saccharin by way of explanation -- it's way too obscure as a footnote -- and link to wiktionary. This is a necessary redirect and an important point of information; I, for example, had no idea until just now that there was a spelling difference between the two forms -- I learn new things every day! -- but the term "saccharine" itself will never be more than a dicdef (and an adjective: wikipedia articles are supposed to be about nouns). Baileypalblue (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree on the redirect (which is what we had!) and agree on some form of rewording of saccharin to clarify the issue. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Political aspects of Islam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A poor unreferenced unfinished essay; tagged since April with no improvement. Hareket (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deranged (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of previously deleted article, but not eligible for G4. Declining BLPPROD and sending to AfD because of its history, but I don't see anything in this article or the previous article demonstrating that an appropriate biography demonstrating notability can be constructed. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Trader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band Rwiggum (/Contrib) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Republicrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every source is from Google. As a matter of fact, it depends on the number of times a term shows up in Google Search. ☭FryPod 15:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Detective Molly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable WP:HOAX. After searching, I can find no evidence this movie exists. The article creator initially identified David Sheppard as the movie's creator, then Dan Shulman; after the article was challenged as a hoax, this was changed to Dan Schneider. I can find no mention of any of these people having been associated with any such film; 1995 would have been early in Dan Schneider's producing/writing career, shortly after the beginning of the run of All That and before the release of Good Burger, the first movie he's known to have produced, which was an offshoot of All That; I doubt he could have gotten an independent movie project greenlighted that early in his career. A PROD tag and speedy hoax tag have been declined. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Looks like the other two articles started by this article creator are hoaxes also: Ariel Elizabeth Haley and Katie Shoemaker. See evidence on their talk pages. I'm not going to bother AFD'ing them, though I don't mind if somebody else does; I'll just BLPPROD them out of existence. If somebody wants to speedy G3 them that would be fine too. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't tell what I missed in forming the AFD -- if someone else could fix whatever's wrong, I'd appreciate it. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually found those SPS on "Private Detective Molly"... a grown up... and not a seven-year-old. Heck, maybe a child's father or big brother wrote this one for a child named Molly. Regardless, it is unsourcable, a very likely hoax, and fails every applicable notability criteria. DELETE per WP:NO WAY JOSE. Schmidt, 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find persuasive the arguments of the majority of participants that the article is insufficiently sourced to support an article with that scope without veering into WP:SYNTH territory, which is a core policy. The basic problem is that you can't just list a number of incidents where Buddhists have been labeled as terrorists; you need reliable secondary published sources that discuss the phenomenon of "Buddhist terrorism" as a whole in some depth, and the "delete" opinions correctly point out that such sources are not cited in the article. This may change if such sources are provided; with all the attention given to terrorism in recent years, it would surprise me if there are no books by reputable academics that cover the subject. In the interim, a home for the content may well be found in some other Buddhism-related article, as some suggest, if there is editorial consensus for that.  Sandstein  08:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete This is a subject derived as a conclusion from several isolated incidents listed to support a personal point of view. Most of these case seems to have other factors contributing, such as political, racial, geographical, etc hence no reliable sources are given to provide a conclusive link between these incident and the existence of Buddhist terrorism. The details of the incidents should be transfered to their own articles where other circumstance that effect them could be added with proper references.Cossde (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply because there is nothing called Buddhist terrorism in the world. And also there are no Buddhist terrorist groups in the world. There should be a thing called Buddhist terrorism in the world to create such an article. Acts of some individual Buddhists or Buddhist monks can not be called terrorism. Buddhists never used violence to promote their philosophy. So this article does not have the potential to become a good and neutral article. Everyone should remember that Knowledge is an Encyclopedia and it is not a Blog. These kind of baseless articles reduce the value and quality of Knowledge. Thank you. --Shehanw (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh please, personal point of view? Original research? Rather than saying that I'd hope you can point out what exactly constitutes as such in the said article. It's funny how many people in the West (even people in the New Atheism movement such as Sam Harris) goes out of their ways to bash the Abraham religions, but often gives undeserved credit to Eastern religions such as Buddhism. Every single religion has its fundamentalist and extremist elements. IT IS A FACT that there have been bloodshed where those involved were Buddhists, we simply need to go dig up more sources to support such arguments. Rather than deletion, I recommend we all come together and help this page grow. If this page is deleted, then how are we ever going to be able to find sources in support of it? Deletion sounds a lot like censorship at this point. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, keep wikiformatting to a minimum in your comments. Kindly have a look at WP:TPG#YES.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny how you guys who vehemently try to delete this article tend to be mostly Buddhists (my personal observation). BTW I just had to add the FACT tags in your comments above, Shehanw, they sound like pretty solid claim, do you care to cite them? Nevertheless that is to be expected: nobody likes to see their own religions and belief systems being criticized. Here are a few points I have to raise:
1. Regardless of your stance or POV on this article, I recommend you read this one - if this article truly has no merit then it will surely not survive the eventual obliteration.
2. The Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo has some real serious foundations in Buddhist (and also Hindu teachings). This cult still exist today.
3. The Chinese government has also accused the Dalai Lama (and the Tibetan Gov't in Exile) of systematically causing the riots that happened in 2008. Whether this is true or not the allegation exist, and the Dalai Lama's rebuke also exist. So this alone is also a significant point.

Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if I may add. If you are a Buddhist practitioner yourself, most likely you would not admit to the existence of Buddhist Terrorists. Similarity, as if you are a Christian, I doubt you'd admit the existence of Christian Terrorists. The same argument can be made if you are a Jew. I think your arguments to delete this article can almost be construed as a form of censorship for your POV. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not an issue with practicing Buddhism. To admit the existence of Buddhsit terrorism, there should be a thing called Buddhsit terrorism in the world. Can you name some Buddhist terrorists or terrorist organizations? Are there any terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda or Taliban, which are connected with Buddhism??? Because there is no Buddhist terrorism in the world, there shouldn't be an article named 'Buddhist terrorism' in the Knowledge too. Otherwise,what is the difference between a blog and Knowledge?--Shehanw (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Its also funny to see that the guys that create and expand this article are mostly communists and/or atheists ("my personal observation"). In reference to Children of the dragon suggestions;
1. For an article to be created/exist there should be an established basis, which has not been proven here. Wiki shouldn't be used for original research.
2. If the Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo is associated with terrorism it should be mentioned in its own article. What does "has some real serious" accentually mean ?
3. Chinese government has negative relations with the Dalai Lama (and the Tibetan Gov't in Exile). Hence such claims has to be verified by a reliable third party as per wiki guide lines.
There is still no conclusive data provided to prove the existence of Buddhist terrorism. Cossde (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, who has actually even read these rules before applying this AfD to this newly created article? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This web link was removed ,because it was from a Pro LTTE web site, which is blocked in Sri Lanka. Those kind of biased unreliable references should not be used in these type of situations. Unfortunately User:Splittist ( new account of blocked User:WilliamWater), does not understand the difference of two words, Tamil and LTTE. Tamils are an ethnic group in South Asia and LTTE is a banned terrorist group in 32 countries. Pro LTTE web sites do not represent the ideas of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. --Shehanw (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep or Userfy - Exactly, this is what makes me glad to be atheist, and this article looks to have a good future because the concept of a religion solely based on peace resorting to terrorism is a intriguing read. ☭FryPod 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Frypod admits to being a sock of a banned user and so I believe this vote should be ignored. —Soap— 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
      • An article of this sensitivity requires citation for anything claimed. This is an encyclopedic article, as such all data in it must have proper references to stand up to out side scrutiny when verification is need. Else there is no difference between a blog and Knowledge. Cossde (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, so if that's the case, then we should all work together to find sources for this article. Simply deleting it may only satisfy (my personal belief here) your willingness to censor this article due to your Buddhist beliefs. I'll admit I haven't really worked on this article for a few weeks now, but isn't the whole point of Knowledge's NPOV that everyone (regardless of your religious and/or political backgrounds) should work together to fix the issues with the articles here? I hope you'll help me (and the Knowledge community at large) to do this. Children of the dragon (talk)
Knowledge is to disperse knowledge on establish facts, not to be a platform for projecting theories. Cossde (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: This should be kept. Religions like Islam have pages with whole plethora of incidents where it is documented how Islam was used as a justification for terrorist acts (or even in some cases just people who happened to be Muslim committing such acts) All religions have their violent people and their fundamentalists. I think it would definitely be censorship if Buddhists committing such acts was not allowed to be well-documented on Knowledge. Yes, let`s not editorialize the matter let`s just all work together to report. Your Medication —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete: Religions like Islam or Christianity having their own Terrorism article does not mean that all other religions should have a similar article. There should be a proper reason for this article to exist. For example, incidents related to Sri Lanka have remained in the article without being properly referenced for 2 weeks. Lets get together and find suitable citations.. is not a valid excuse anymore. If that is the case, anyone would be able to create articles of their own hypothetical theories and keep them until suitable references are found. Don't confuse this for censorship. And yes, all religions have their violent people. But you have to depict how these people have manipulated the teachings of religion to support their violent activities. Otherwise every crime commited by persons would have been accounted for a religion! Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
See my comments to shehanw above - if there are no instances of Buddhists committing terrorists acts that YOU know of, it doesn't mean they don't exist. If they truly do not exist, then this article won't survive, even if per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've never told that I know no instances of Buddhists committing terrorist acts. In fact, you might not know that several Sinhalese people -some of them being Buddhists- have been captured in the final stages of Sri Lankan Civil War, for performing terrorist activities with LTTE - an organization proscribed by 32 countries as a terrorist organization. According to your theory, that should also be included in this artcile as Buddhist terrorism. The point that you are missing in your argument is, there exists separate forms of terrorism called Political/nationalist terrorism and Religious terrorism. You seem to have mixed up these terms. For instance, this article deals entirely with a political matter. It states that a priest has pulled down a party flag, burnt it and hoisted another flag. Besides it carries the topic Advent of "Buddhist terrorism", which suggests that Buddhist terrorism has not existed before. Disregarding the tone of the article and the pro-LTTE writer, it deals entirely with a political matter. "Advent of Buddhist Terrorism" is its writer's POV and not an established opinion. Can Knowledge take a source like this as WP:RS? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's debatable, but we should only use that source to verify itself. That is, G.G Ponnambalam is a reliable source for statements such as "G.G Ponnambalam calls this Buddhist terrorism". To discuss this further, please do so on the article talk page. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The question here where to move, I have observed that the User:ButOnMethItIs haded parts of this article to another article that he/she has greatly contributed to: Criticism of Buddhism. The subsection, Accusation of violence proves no link between buddisum and violence that has been accused here. It should be noted at the actions of individual people can not be considered as the actions of the religion. None of the refs given here suggests that these people carried out these acts in the name of their religion. Hence what I believe is that due to the lack of refs to suggest action were carried out in the name of Buddhism, these items should be moved to the articles on the conflicts them selves. Just because Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which lead to the start of world war 1, we can't say that Atheists started world war 1.Cossde (talk)
  • Merge into Criticism of Buddhism. I think the information should be kept in the encyclopedia, the only question is where? Choices are (1) its own article either named Buddhist terrorism or Buddhism and violence; or (2) within a larger, existing article such as Criticism of Buddhism. Since the amount of material is relatively small, I vote for Merge until it grows, and and content-fork is warranted. Arguments above for Deletion based on Synth or OR are not valid, because the wider WP community has repeatedly considered this issue (lists of violent acts associated with a religion) in the context of other religions, and the result is alway Keep (see the numerous existing articles such as Christianity and violence). We cannot treat Buddhism differently than other religions. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No substantial links have been established based on any reliable sources to the existence of Buddhist terrorism, nor has it be shown any organization or group carrying out acts of terrorism in the name of Buddhism, as it has been the case with other forms of Religious terrorism or violence. The four events in the regions seems more political and ideological than with religion at closer look. The events should be moved to their own articles rather than Criticism of Buddhism. Nitraven (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Move or Merge: as the original autor of the said article, I would be willig to accept a move or merge for now, if there are no substantial merit for an article with the said title. I simply do not have enough time to research at this moment. Children of the dragon (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Since No RS has yet been forwarded to establish the fact at there is something called Buddhist terrorism I suggest that this article be deleted immediately. Cossde (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid the debate is far from over at this point. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yet you still fail to provide a direct link to these terrorist act and Buddhism nor establish the existence of Buddhist terrorism. I fear this debate is on something at simple does not exist. Cossde (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence that this is not just one non-notable event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 hand hacking incident in Kerala eve teasing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a continuation to unlawful incident happening in Kerala. See an example article 2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala, which happened last month.Some gang and culprits use similar attacking policies in this event also.
This issue has some political impact locally where major organizations are part of it, though it is not mentioned in the article -- Indiashines (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E is shown in the article with the references.. WP:DIVERSE is shown by similar crimes one month back. 2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala.WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE,WP:PERSISTENCE prevails as it is covered by national media like NDTV and numerous news reports. see. -- Indiashines (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted by WWGB, it's a single crime without notability. If there's a pattern here, it's best dealt with in an article about the region. Only once there's too much content for that article should it be split off to a separate article. (Comment: I have no objection if some of this content is merged to Kerala; however, I don't think this title should be retained as a redirect.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi fred, there is a related, similar event, which is already a big article2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala. So it is better to keep this article and give a link to the other article. I have already linked this article to the other article -- Indiashines (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. At present the incident has only news value. Salih (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • keep There is another news value and single crime discussion is going on in wiki 2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala , so we can link this article to that discussion (Achu 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazlu2010 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - per not news. Seems like a typical case of personal violence (there is "eve teasing" in the title itself). The other hand chopping incident has only the "hand chopping" part in common with this. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument and i believe that the other article too doesn't belong in wikipedia (maybe a twoline mention in the religious violence in india article)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All peoples should know what happend and these type of organzations should be banned. Police should take proper action to avoid this type of incidents in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram mohan2010 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

— Ram mohan2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

— DescriberOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Salih (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal Siraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Open source article contributor, with no clear assertion of notability. The only sources are the subject's employer, the Bleacher Report. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Starling Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by author, with no addition of sources. The article currently lacks any sources or assertion of notability. With this theatrical group having opened so recently, I am uncertain if enough press will be able to be produced to establish notability. I am certainly open to withdrawing the nomination if reliable sources are introduced. Cheers. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 11:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Son Heung-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Athlete never plays in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete G3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Amrik Virdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Subject was born in 1989; the only source contained is a book written in 1995, which doubtfully establishes any notability. Sources are alluded to, but a casual check reveals nothing. The sources are about the gang, not about the subject of the article. Delete as hoax. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 10:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch·comms 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

List of members of the American College of Medical Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Although they all have presence on wiki, it would make a much better category. NativeForeigner /Contribs 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - the issue is the inclusion criterion. If the title is "list of members", one would expect all members, regardless of whether they are wiki notable or not, and that does fall under WP:NOTDIR. If the elements of the list are actually fellows (exclusively), then it should be "list of fellows", and again, Wiki notability should not be in the inclusion criterion, and the discussion should be whether fellows of this particular society meet the guideline requirements for stand-alone list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Buh? It says at the top exactly what it is, and includes a link to the college's directory. We have lots of lists with the same property, that they only include people notable enough to have bluelinks. And being discriminate is not a deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - every entry on the list, and the topic of the list, is notable enough for Knowledge. The list simply makes it easier to find the information that the user is looking for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep , but move to List of Fellows... Membership is nothing special. But Fellowship is, as for most learned societies. We would probably consider being a Fellow of this society as a signification contribution to notability, though not as one of the organizations where the fellowship or membership is intrinsically notable, like a national academy of science. . I am not sure that we should make lists (or for that matter categories) for every possible organization, listing members of that organization who happen to have Knowledge articles (we do this for colleges and high schools, though, but I suggest we continue to treat that as an exception.) I think we should do this, however, for those positions which count significantly towards showing notability , and elected fellowship in a society such as this is such a position. As for duplicating a category, unless there is some really special reason not to, we should always do so. They;re different means of navigation; some prefer one, some the other. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Laurie Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Macross characters. Arbitrarily0  23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Boddole Zer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional character fails to comply with Knowledge General Notability Guideline since it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources used in the article are either aggregation sites (two) or are dead (one). Fleet Command (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Macross characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruno J. Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional character has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and hence fails to comply with Knowledge Notability Requirements; thus this subject does not merit an article of its own. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoreline Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. Should have been speedy deleted, but CSD removed without cause or reason. ttonyb (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thiruvalla P. Unnikrishnan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

I forgot how to add to this. So let me add by editing.

Deletion of the article was outrageous, considering the contribution of Mr. Nair. As I explained earlier, 'TEMPLE HISTORY' is a new branch in India, especially in Kerala where temples used to be the power centres in ancient times. Being a local historian, you will definitely not find anything about him from a global search. His books are published locally. His books are referred to only in Kerala. Claims are not 'glorious' ( you could have shown more civility). He doesn't need 'glory'. For my study and reference, his works have been of great help. Many others have found them helpful. He had been a regular writer in Kerala's newspapers till he fell ill. Even foreign university professors visit him. Yet people do not know that an eminent scholar lives among them! His fame is now confined to students and professors of history.

If one does not appear in the net, 'delete'!??? Note that knowledge still lies in books; you have to bring it to the notice of the world. If you have any Keralite (a knowledgeable one) on the edit-board he/she can talk to historians like Dr. Rajan Gurukkal (Vice-Chancellor, MG University, Kottayam, Kerala, India).

I noticed your deletion today when I tried to upload 2 photos.

And 'catastrophe'? Well, well.... Knowledge is supposed to enlighten the world. It should be proud that it is the first website that introduced Temple History and a temple historian to the world!Please bring back the article, since I am collecting more data on him. I have to upload photos as well.

Click the link below; he is mentioned at many sites. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankanjirakunnil (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


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

I gave it some time (March)... but this is still a catastrophe. Notability isn't established, has quite a few glorious claims, but the two possibly valid refs are offline w/o any specifications of the books in question, so I cannot verify them. Furthermore, I couldn't find much about this guy in an initial run through the internet. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:V. If the claims in the articles can be sourced with reliable sources, then there is a chance that he meets WP:AUTH (DC books is a major publisher in Kerala). Will change my vote if sources can be found.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both, Depublican by User:SchuminWeb as G3, Depublican Party by User:JamesBWatson as A7. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Depublican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Depublican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I contested the prod on this myself only because I think AfD would work better in this case. Anyway, this is a non-notable neologism that appears to want to be a spin-off of Republicrat (which has questionable notability itself). There isn't a speedy criterion for this kind of thing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page has the creator full-on admitting that s/he created the term. This is a borderline speedy now. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Do the "Yes Men" have a page? Do they qualify as a political organization? ----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmodem (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of rhetorical questions in this matter is, but needless to say, the "Yes Men" are also in the position of being a highly notable group. In my honest opinion, they appear to be more of a political movement than organization of individuals, but that point I find to be moot. What does them being a political organization have to do with the matter at hand? Additionally, I should point out that with regard to Depublican, Knowledge is not a dictionary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Through what seems to be an act of coincidence, should such a thing exist, Republicrat has been nominated for deletion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedily Delete I'm not quite sure that a "pull-the-trigger-it's-a-hoax!" is quite valid here, but it definitely is evident self-promotion that is nothing short of spam for the purpose of seemingly driving visitors to their site to gain hits, and potential revenue while trying to use non-existent terminology in the process - possibly for the purpose of garnering attention by coining a term in the political world. Additionally, the page is nothing more than a "definition" (this is not the Urban Dictionary), and it's sister "article" is Depublican Party which shares in the attribute that it pushes so much POV that it's not even remotely close to funny. It also inherently violates WP:OR, has absolutely no third-party reliable sources for the purpose of verification, and relies entirely upon it's own website for promotion and verification of said article up for deletion which is being vigorously defended by what we can only assume is the website's owner which further violates WP:COI. Did I mention, WP:N? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: See: Vodello (above) ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Secondary Note: A quick Google search turns up absolutely nothing but links to the owners site, YouTube videos uploaded by the creator (which seem to be directly challenging "Republicrats" - which I question the notability of as is, but that's another matter), and links to this Knowledge article (and AfD). If that's not a grab at attention for the purpose of promotion, I don't know what is. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 21:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Doe Deere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notability--refs. are profuse but not to reliable or neutral sources. Commercial slant in article seems irredeemable. Artiquities (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: Closest thing to reliable sourcing is a couple of mentions as a makeup artist. One link shows that she was interviewed for a magazine but the magazine has no Wiki article.  Mbinebri  23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Madara (Japanese myth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definately a hoax. Or the creater mixes up a recently created manga and game character with a traditional Yōkai. I'm a ja editor, but have never heard of the creature. There is no Madara in this list and there is no entry in ja Knowledge except a manga/game character. Furthermore, no entry at this dtabase Though it's referenced with two published books, I'm afraid it's dubious that they really have Madara descriptions. See also this talk. Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, wasn't sure when I read it, outside my scope but it sounded funny...--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Although I'm not as involved with the topic of Japanese folklore/mythology as I used to be, I did at one point in my life read quite a lot on the subject, and this sounds decisively non-traditional to me. I'm not familiar with Naruto canon, but if this topic is important in-world, parts of the article could be merged into an appropriate Naruto-related article. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm finding nothing to substantiate anything in this article, and while like TomorrowTime I'm not as deep into Japanese folklore/mythology as I once was, this does not ring right to me. Delete as unverified and possible hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Until a reference is added, this falls under the BLP PROD process. Should a source be added and the article still fail our guidelines, I will reopen this AfD myself. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -- timed 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vikash Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations, BLP-PROD was removed by creator. Forty two 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Readded the the PROD tag. --Redtigerxyz 10:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Flightradar24.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Website with unclear notability. The only non-primary sources used in the article are merely instances of this website being credited for one or two graphics that appeared in newspapers. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 05:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ecclesia of Women in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Among other things: no significant notability; COI with former member of Coordinating Team Andrea Lizares; the same text is on Ning in multiple areas of their site; slanted tone. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 04:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. The article appears to be copied from a High School Musical soundtrack article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

College Musical (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Along with the College Musical article, this soundtrack article is also completely false. No such movie or soundtrack exist. Lasaky (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant hoax information. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

College Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is completely fake. It was probably made up by some people as an inside joke. Lasaky (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Zand Benevolent Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If this organization exists at all (try a Google News search--nothing]) it is not notable. Incidentally, I am following up on an IP's question at Zand dynasty. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaheen Nazli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:Author. Speedy deletion was declined with this diff. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced and unimproved for three years. J04n(talk page) 02:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Raeez Lorgat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brilliant young man, one of many so honored in the references provided. However, does not meet guidelines for WP:PROF. Few or no acceptable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. Google search offers little. JNW (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment A number are so honored each year, with the awards given to promising scholars at the high school level. Unless their later achievements gain notice, the individual winners here don't appear to merit separate articles. I interpret the guideline to refer to prestigious honors at the professional level. JNW (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment Note #9 of WP:PROF says specifically "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment Thanks, Radagast3, for taking the time to read more of WP:PROF than I did! JNW (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I only know because someone pointed that out to me on another AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will concede on the basis of the point made by Radagast. The idea behind the article was that the Subject would be considered notable on the basis of receiving many national and international awards for original research performed by him and demonstrated at ISEF 2007, and further exemplified on the basis of coverage over TV and radio interviews across South Africa (I am South African myself). If the notability guidelines specifically outlaw accomplishment in the academic context of high school/university where the accomplishment is made notable through rewards in a contest, then the article should not be included. Will mark for deletion from my user name space. - Yellowjacketboys (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radagast, with special mention to Yellowjacketboys for being so gracious about it. It's a pleasant surprise to see the creator of an article not try to wikilawyer their way around an AFD. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment Something I find interesting is that whilst the Subject is considered notable in his home country (South Africa), this may not hold true when (as demonstrated by requests for GS results etc) the subject's notability is scrutinized from a US/Internet coverage perspective - a distinction that is quite important when you consider that there is virtually little to no internet presence regarding news in South Africa. A difficulty I had when researching and writing for this article was how little online material was available for citation. I'm curious if there is even a procedure whereby offline sources are made available for citation? I suppose I'm more curious about this in general then in just the scope of this article.Yellowjacketboys (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be online. Indeed, for many historical articles, online sources may not even exist. Read WP:V and the related pages for more info on what sources are appropriate, how to cite them and other relevant info. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, offline media can be cited (see {{Cite news}} for a template), and a large amount of South African print news coverage could meet the general notability guidelines. However, in such cases it's up to the article authors to find the sources, and there are no guarantees of how much will be enough to satisfy an AfD discussion. In this particular case, I doubt that there would be enough, but there may, for example, be local politicians or religious figures who would be notable on the basis of print media coverage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

B. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources don't appear to be reliable, some sources don't seem to support the statements in them. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't fulfill WP:ENT. Notability is implied by familial connection, but famous family does not confer notability upon offspring. References are bad - wikipedia, japanese sites, amazon (?WTF). Eddie.willers (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • How does being Japanese make a source bad? All except the MTV source are from sites trying to sell us something, which is what makes them "bad", not that they are in Japanese. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /Contribs 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, refocus, and move to 2010 Nocton Dairies controversy. There seems to be insufficient coverage of the organisation as a whole, but plenty in relation to the planning application. Note that the target I've moved it to seemed to have some general agreement but it's not necessarily definitive - if a consensus on the talk page comes up with a different title that's better suited, please don't consider this closure as an impediment to moving it somewhere else. ~ mazca 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nocton Dairies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:ORG and WP:1E as the organization does not appear to be notable apart from some opposition to a single planning application. The petition and facebook group opposition are not notable for size and there is no sign of sustained media interest. Raising for discussion rather than PROD as there is some media interest but not significant enough or sustained enough to meet the criteria of impact on the historical record required. Knowledge is an encyclopaedia, not a media outlet for campaign groups. Fæ (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Another planning application is likely to be submitted soon. http://nocton.blogspot.com/2010/07/nocton-dairies-limited_30.html The facebook group continues to grow in size. Media interest may be low at the moment but I would not be surprised if it spiked again as the story unfolds. This issue may have an impact on the historical record because it could mean a substantial shift in the way cows are farmed in the UK. Good point about Knowledge not being an outlet for campaign groups. But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Knowledge great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen? OliverCopsey (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverCopsey (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Whateer happens in the future cannot be documented in an encycopedia WP:CRYSTAL; Facebook is not acceptable within the meaning of WP:RS. and Knowledge is not a platform for pressure groups. WP:SOAP--Kudpung (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. As falling foul of WP:1E and WP:ORG. Planning appeals are not that rare or, unless it causes a change in the law, that significant. Re 'But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Knowledge great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen?' - no, Knowledge is an encyclopedia and contains things that are notable, not things a campaign group hope may become notable. News outlets report things as they happen Nuttah (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now, I know that this goes against what a lot of other experienced editors think, and I know that here is a danger of this article being a bit soapbox / pressure-group ish, but this has attracted a lot of attention in the national media here, and I'm sure a whole load more references could be found - I'll try and clean it up, and get rid of the FB links. If WP can produce an unbiased factual article on controversial topics like this, then all the better, IMHO. Chris (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local event regarding non-notable companies. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nageh (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a bit harsh - look at all the national press coverage it got. Most events are to some degree local, it's whether they have any national impact that metters, and this does. Chris (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • A big harsh, agreed. But the thing is, the plans have been withdrawn so even the company isn't notable at the moment. There are also no articles on the people or companies behind the plan on wikipedia. So I fail to see why this one-time event should be covered. Nageh (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The current article appears to be (and have been) almost entirely about a campaign against planning applications. If you feel that the campaign is notable based on the press coverage, then I suggest you find some sources to demonstrate its notability and propose a new article. As it stands there has been nothing new added since this AfD started that can show that Nocton Dairies (the topic of this nomination) will meet the WP:ORG guidelines in the near future. Fæ (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:org says :"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". Are The Observer, The Guardian, The Times and BBC News not reliable enough? I take your point about the article being more about the rejection of the planning application, mind - maybe a better place for the article would be at Rejection of Nocton Dairies' planning application or something like that, but it's a but cumbersome. The reason that this is notable is not because of the campaign to stop it, but because of its impact on British agricultural policy. Essentially the rejection of this application is a "No" to intensive milk farming in the UK, and the article doesn't quite make that clear. I'll try and find a source for that and add it. Chris (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If you work this better out, and change the title into something meaningful that refers to the campaign rather than to the company, the picture might look a bit better after all. Nageh (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename and refocus the article, as per comment by user Chris above. I think the actual subject matter - the public opposition to the application, and the long term effects on UK agricultural policy - are notable, given the fairly large collection of references. The problem is that the ostensible subject of the article (Nocton Dairies) is not. As for a less cumbersome title: 2010 Nocton Dairies Controversy would seem appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /Contribs 01:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been established that as it stands this would be delete. However, some have indicated that if refocused and moved it would meet guidelines. Please discuss appropriate titles, and whether the event itself meets notability guidelines. NativeForeigner /Contribs 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • 2010 Nocton Dairies Controversy seems reasonable, however from the current sources available of the campaign (the majority of the national newspaper articles do not mention a campaign, only critical comments from animal rights groups) and the lack of any sources describing resulting change in official planning policy or legislative proposal, I have yet to see anything that would show the campaign meets WP:GNG. There are national newspaper articles, which demonstrates that campaign has succeeded in its publicity objective, however as per my original nomination, the numbers of people who joined the facebook group was non-notable and the outcomes of the campaign have also been non-notable. In particular it is not clear that the withdrawal of dairy plans and potential future re-submittal was as a result of anything the campaign did. I am slightly concerned that PR campaigns may be interpreted as meeting GNG due to press impact (the whole point of a PR campaign) when the substance of a PR campaign is too weak for an encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a link to an article from the Economist about the future ramifications for the British Dairy Industry. There are also a lot more new articles out there in the last week or so because of the resubmitted planning application, but if I add any more the list of refs will be longer than the article! Chris (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I consider the Economist an excellent high quality source. The article implies that the planned development would be the largest of its type to date in the UK by a significant margin but does not actually state it. The story talks about resistance to the plans but does not specify anything about the campaign in order to support an argument that the campaign itself is notable. If such a good quality source were to include clearer statements about notability then the issue of whether to keep such an article would be cracked but I'm not sure that this source does it yet. Fæ (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The recently added Independent, 25 June, does it for me. This makes it explicit that the plan is for "Europe's largest dairy unit" and says a few things about the campaign (more probably needed though). Personally I would be happy to see the suggested article about the campaign created on this basis. If it (or another) gets built there may be a later merge discussion to be had... Fæ (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I see the article as it stands now as a firm basis to discuss the ongoing activities around the intended company merger. After proper renaming of the article (as suggested) I would agree to have the article kept. Nageh (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

James Baar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously prod-deleted article. Author with a few published books. The article asserts that the subject is mentioned in Marquis Who's Who, yet Google returns little in terms of reliable sources aside from that. Weak delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone improperly filed an AFD on another article. I have removed it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCES and ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF NOTABILITY

- Providence Journal . Certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion. As to notability, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." The very nature of the Providence Journal article is that Mr. Baar is notable and that his commentary about the Golden Age of Advertising important.

- NASA: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm . NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52. Apparently, NASA considers Baar work as significant enough and credible enough to variously rely on his views when compiling the organizations own autobiographical history.

- Note reference to a "Memo from the Publisher: James Baar, our editor of military affairs...", Missiles and Rockets Magazine, Washinton, DC, August 1961.

- Note: In 1980 his book "The Great Free Enterprise Gambit" was reviewed by The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, UPI, Forbes, Seattle Times Magazine, and Kirkus Reviews. (Specific dates and page references are not readily available but can be gotten via the library.)

- Baar is featured in Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Who's Who in the East, AND Who's Who in Public Relations.

- Contrary to an earlier debate re: O'Dwyer's Directories, these lists are vetted by O'Dwyer news staffers. Baar is referenced variously among the top PR agency executives there.

- Baar's professional memberships have required specific professional qualifications. His memberships have included the White House Correspondents Association, National Press Club (Washington), Association of US Aerospace Industry Representatives-Europe (Paris), Overseas Press Club, National Investor Relations Institute (president, Philadelphia Chapter).

- Note: Reader's Digest. 40th anniversary issue, Feb. 1962, "Big Search for a Defense against Missiles" by James Baar and William E. Howard, p. 127

- Note: New York Herald Tribune, April 18, 1965, p. 23, reports that a copy of "Polaris!" was sent to President Johnson by the head of US Civil Service as part of the recommendation to appoint Vice Adm William F. Raborn, former head of the Polaris development program, Director of the CIA.

Bdconnolly (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Here's my take on the arguments above. These comments are written for the benefit of Bdconolly:
    • The Providence Journal reference does of course qualify as reliable and non-trivial. The previous close as delete was done on the grounds that this was the only such reference anyone had found by the time of the closing.
    • The NASA notes do mention Baar's Polaris as a "see also." This shows that Baar's work is to be considered reliable as a reference in articles about the subject of his book, but by itself I'm wondering if it's just a nudge when it comes to establishing Baar's notability.
    • The Missiles and Rockets Magazine memo is not the kind of evidence of notability we are looking for, as it constitutes, for this purpose, a primary source.
    • Marquis Who's Who has selection criteria that are different than ours, based on the quality and credibility of the subject's achievements (they always refused to include Monica Lewinsky, for example) rather than pre-established notoriety. It fits our definition of a secondary source, however much of the material about the lesser-known subjects is autobiographical, and some people have questioned the selection process (see for example this).
    • Here is O'Dwyer's website. I don't know what to make of it, but a Google News search shows that firm's publications to be rather obscure.
    • Baar's professional memberships have nothing to do with his notability, regardless of the qualifications necessary to obtain them.
    • Having one article published in Reader's Digest is not enough by itself to convey notability. Being the subject of significant coverage (see WP:GNG) is not the same as being the author of significant coverage.
    • Now the news item about a copy of Polaris sent to the president is the kind of significant coverage we are looking for, provided that the articles mentioned be about the book or its author, or at least that the mention of the book and/or its author constitute a significant part of the article, and the article is not the kind that's a two-liner hidden on a page otherwise full of ads. The articles (or any other significant coverage, for that matter) do not need to be available online (and no one could reasonably expect an article that old to be available online), but they do need to address Baar significantly, not just in passing.
  • So, to establish notability, we have coverage in the Providence Journal that is unquestionably valid (that's a "yes"), we have a "maybe" with the Herald-Tribune coverage and the NASA references, and a "maybe but probably not" with Who's Who and O'Dwyer's. And perhaps what other editors might be able to come up with. -- Blanchardb -- timed 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I completely forgot about the book criticism in the New York Times. At first glance that sounds better than all other arguments except the one about the Providence Journal. Call that a "maybe, leaning towards yes." -- Blanchardb -- timed 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /Contribs 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. - Bad layout but seems to be over the notability bar. I wish as much effort that has gone into this debate would go into improving the article. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Toye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP1E Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Foot-tapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure original research, written like marketing copy, no references. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, foot tapping already redirects to entrainment (biomusicology), which a quick search for sources does appear to be the correct scientific name for the process by which bodily rhythms become synchronized to an external beat. (See ISBN 9780195340051 pp. 44 et seq., for example.) Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A further quick search for sources turns up no accepted translations for the Québécois podorhythmie, and English just directly borrowing the word. So if this belongs anywhere, it is at podorhythmie. Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - There's a good article to be written on this subject here. This is a bad one. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be a large topic as foot-tapping is used in multiple ways - as a beat clock in numerous musical forms such as flamenco or ragtime or to provide an irregular rhythm or emphasis in forms like Norse poetry. See Beethoven's Anvil for some commentary on the underlying neurophysiology. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this article be disambiguated from the nervous tick and the solicitation technique used by gay men in bathroom stalls? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you have any evidence that anyone actually calls it "foot tapping"? As I wrote above, "podorhythmie" (sometimes "podorythmie") seems to be the actual name, although I didn't find any good sources in my quick search that documented what it actually was. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This article discusses it and notes a book from 1970 that discusses this and other bathroom courtship rituals . "Published in 1970, "Tearoom Trade" is full of useful information about foot tapping, shoe touching, hand signaling and all the other rituals those so inclined use to make contact with one another in such places." Many people may be curious about this subject so I think it would be good to point them in the right direction. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • A book that isn't about the subject discussed in this article at all isn't evidence. Once again: Do you have any evidence that what is discussed here, in the article at hand that we're supposed to have read, is called "foot tapping"? Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
          • My comment related to whether disambiguation would be beneficial, so I don't understand your response. An article that discusses foot tapping and is titled with the terminology foot tapping and that notes a book covering foot tapping seems solid evidence for that usage. I know that subject isn't discussed in this article. That's why I was asking about disambiguation. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Disambiguation is for multiple topics that would have articles at, or redirects at, the same title. So for this article to require disambiguation would involve, as a premise, the notion that its proper title, or an alternative name for it, is "foot tapping" in the first place. As I said above, I couldn't find any evidence that the English name of this is anything but a direct borrowing of the Québécois name. But I haven't yet found it documented under that name, either, although I've not done as complete a search as I would like. fr:podorythmiste, alas, has nothing useful in this regard. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt Henshaw (British musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing satisfying wp:music. Competition not major. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Previously deleted at Matt Henshaw (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Censored) duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure every artist out there can grow, doesn't mean they need an article. --NortyNort (Holla) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but this one seems to be doing more currently than most. And I'm sure there are some nice pictures in the public domain. Ilsonowl (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Matt Henshaw is sick. Currently working with Skinnyman and Rtillery. Rustyjay (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope he gets well soon :) Notability is not inherited, especially not from RTillery. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
RTillery = seems to be another UK hip-hop artist given the knife by Knowledge editors. Shame. Ilsonowl (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
NME Breakthrough is a comp artists enter and submit their own bio, not exactly independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
NME news is independent source. And reliable. Other Matt Henshaw sources include BBC, Drowned in Sound, The Fly, Sandman and many major and minor independent national press sources. With former band Censored and now as a solo artist. Ilsonowl (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Matt Henshaw only has 71 unique listeners on Last.fm, which swings it to a delete for me. That's not just a small listenerbase, it's next to non-existent. Esteffect (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sumo Paint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software with no indication of notability; no citation to reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have not decided what I think of the notability of this particular package, but I have found three reviews and added references to same. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Global Meetings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though categories and lists can co-exist, this list of each and every meeting (with a 'major attendance' entry standard decided on its own) is too generic, too wide, and too expansive an area to be consolidated through one term "Global Meetings". Also, it's not quite clear what would qualify as global and what would not. Given the work done on the article, I was two minded about a CSD/prod. Either delete the article or create an expansive category perhaps. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ, Wolfview, • Gene93k, mboverload Thank you guys for your criticism, feedback and input. I think you make some valid points. I hope we can communicate/collaborate to come up with the best possible outcome. I think the core problems come down to this:

    • expansive category (The critique being that the article is too generic, too wide, and too expansive an area). I think it is encyclopedic and useful to create an article that is NOT-comprehensive, and is instead exclusive. We already have exhaustive lists of events. The idea is not to create a list of all global events, indeed that would be 10 of 1,000s of events. The need is for a leading events page.
    • categories and list co-existing There are already exhaustive lists and/or categories for political forums & industry. The limitations with these is that I can't, as a user seeking information, go to one place and find a definitive list of the main reoccurring events by industry/sector. Neither is done in the form of a ranked lists or unranked list (exclusive to the main events). That I believe is what is needed. There are two ways to determine what is a leading event. First, by a common metric (such at attendance), which is objective. Second, you could determine what is leading, by a consensus of insiders/outsiders. An example would be the World Economic Forum. This clear consensus forms when users (filtering and taking into account essentially all variables) concedes the importance of the event). Seeing a mining event with 40k attendance would not be featured on this list, because mining is not a mainstream event, attendance is too low and in the grand scheme of things this event is insignificant.
    • global meetings- Perhaps the name is wrong, but the idea is simple, for research and user purposes there should be one place where a person can go to find the main definitive flagship meetings for a particular area. Wether it be for cars, global politics etc. To date, I don't think this need has been satisfied. The inclusion of "global" simply applies looking worldwide and not a regionally, which I don't think is a problem. The term global may be misleading, but in fact any event that is a leading event (has major global attendance) is a leading event. Perhaps the article should be called leading events. Again the term "global enough" is false, instead "important" or "leading" is more accurate.
    • original research I don't personally believe original research is needed. The collaborative nature of Knowledge serves as the vetting and research mechanism in my opinion. For example is the World Economic Forum a major event in world politics? Yes, without a doubt. Do I know this due to original research? No, I know this due to the popularity and because it is ingrained culturally in world politics. The same is true of events like E3. Tons of websites cover E3 making events like this the informal, unofficially recognized leading events. I don't see how it is unmaintainable. On a practical level, many of this events achieve global importance and remain there and reoccur on a yearly basis. Surely, the list is evolving and never fully complete (nor is any list). But this is a practical and simple hurdle. I am not attempting to present original research on global events, but simply a reference that makes a best attempt to represent an on-the-ground consensus of leading events.
    • two minded about a CSD/prod- I am unclear on this phrase, could somebody please explain.

--taylorluker —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to the information provided above, the determining factor resulting in inclusion on Knowledge involves the introduction of POV. What is "important" and/or "leading" to one person may not be the standard for another. Cindamuse (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Xtreme Turf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the apparent popularity of this product a Google News Search for "Xtreme Turf" reveals zero hits; my Google Web search shows no independent coverage, i.e., coverage beyond company press releases. This product unfortunately does not seem to have garnered any independent notability, to date. The article also reads like an advert for ACT Global Sports, which also happens to be the name of the apparent COI corporate account which created it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • ... oh now hold on: my Google News search revealed nothing at all but for some reason there's a much better result on the "news" link in Find sources. Why would that be? Anyway, I'll gladly withdraw if others agree. The few hits I see, while not massively notable, are enough for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is clearly far better-sourced than it was when most of the delete votes were made. I was tempted to go for an unprecedented third relist, but as it is it's probably best to close the current debate one way or another due to the greatly changed condition of the article. If someone has genuine concerns over the continuing sourcing of the article, then they may renominate the article for a fresh debate. ~ mazca 11:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy Bachetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur racing driver. Fails WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport and WP:GNG. Only drives at a local short track. Drdisque (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. ☭FryPod 00:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've stricken the !vote above by a banned user. Deor (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that, often a blind person could see the person is not notable, this article has been here years and not had any citations added. I did a google search before I vote commented as I always do. http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Andy+Bachetti&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b. On a side note the Keep vote commenter has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to provide evidence of notability or just make slanderous remarks you have no proof of? Ridernyc (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I offended you, I didn't mean to do that. The rationales for the Delete votes seemed, to me, to indicate that the two of you just looked at the article and that was it. I was clearly wrong, I apologize. Silverseren 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, emphasis is easily mistaken through the keyboard and you clearly meant no ill will. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added in references for most of the things in the article and added some more race info. It's clear that, if he's going to meet the Additional Guidelines, it would have to be fore number 1, "Have driven in a fully professional series." The problem is that, for dirt racing, I don't know what competitions count as fully professional. From the tone of the references, it seems to me that this Super DIRTcar Series would be fully professional, as would a few of the other races he's been involved in. Can someone tell me what races count as fully professional for modified dirt racing championships? Silverseren 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Quoting the guideline: "A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series." I would be surprised if any automobile dirt track racing would pass that standard. It's not impossible, though. Tiderolls 21:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Then...that's not a useful standard to use in terms of dirt racing. Shouldn't we just default to the GNG in that case? Silverseren 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
He looks, fluffed up now and still only notable in a small corner of the world. I am also not finding much content about him at some of those citations, but it is difficult to see, what is the content in this citation http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dLotAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z4gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2072,6625379&dq=andy-bachetti&hl=en Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That source is used to note and reference, as it says in the article text, that he participated in the I Love New York Championship and also placed second behind Tony Stewart. (I should really be saying The Tony Stewart.) Silverseren 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The suitability of the standard is a subject for the guideline page. Tiderolls 22:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
So, that cite says he came second in a race, is the race notable? That Tony Stewart is clearly notable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the race is notable? How do we tell? Does a race have to be notable (as in, having an article on Knowledge) in order to be mentioned? Silverseren 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, its just imo a reflection that citation of a google archive newspaper search result is being used to support that he came second in a not notable race. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The only I love New York Championship I can find coverage for is a golf tournament. Still have not seen any sources to establish notability. Lots of fluff from local newspapers and racing sites of questionable quality. Ridernyc (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I would think that the race has to be at least semi-important, unless Tony Stewart is going around racing in no-name championships. He could be, I suppose. Silverseren 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone one can make assumptions that's why we have guidelines and rely on citations from reliable sources. By the way the correct name for the race appears to have been "The I love New York 100" and I can find a total of 2 local news hits for it on Google news . Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be that default to the GNG is the way to go here from what was stated there. Silverseren 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, WP:NSPORTS just generalizes when someone is likely to meet WP:GNG. If there is ambiguity if someone meets WP:NSPORTS then you must find sources to pass WP:GNG. Actually you are supposed to find sources anyways. But you get my point I am sure. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the sources then? Silverseren 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I just noticed that I didn't vote. Based upon the conclusion at the Notability (sports) talk page, that "modified dirt track racing" doesn't really work with the Motorsports additional guidelines, as there aren't really any "professional" races in the type of racing, that means that we must fall back to the GNG in such cases. And it is quite clear to me that the subject passes GNG in a very ably manner. Silverseren 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate. Unsourced BLP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy link to article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Demarco Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Googlye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is news presenter at WNBC. There's a few sources on him, including his page where he works, and some other bits. However, I think the coverage overall is quite low and doesn't pass threshold. Not many Google hits given his position in media. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are a number of hits on GNews. However, not many of them appear to constitute substantial coverage, most seem to just mention him. A few are reports written by him. Article also still has no inline sources so liable for BLP prod. Contains details that nobody can verify. Debate needs more participants. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Your error here is "significant" and "substantial" are not the same thing, as WP:GNG states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". A number of less substantial are quite fine, as long as they are significant and address the subject in detail. Schmidt, 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep this easily sourcable article about award-winning news reporter and allow continued improvement over time through the course of regular editing. Individual was "Honorary Grand Marshal two years in a row for the United Negro College Fund, was "one of the only African Americans ranked in the nation's Top Ten Collegiate Journalists in the country in 2001 by Scripps Howard", was named by one of Ebony Magazine as one of Top 30 Future Young Leaders of America in 2006, was named by South Florida Magazine as one of the top 40 most influential black professionals in 2008, and was presented in 2009 with the "Thurgood Marshall Prestige Award" for his community service in New York, Many reliable sources speak toward the individual directly and in detail and in context to his career, even if he is not the main topic of the source article. Per definition at WP:GNG, such sources meet requirements as "significant"... and thus meet the GNG's rquirement that such sources exist. While yes, a lack of sources is always of a concern, that they DO exist means the article is improvable, and the assertions in the article can indeed be verified in multiple reliable sources. That no one has done so yet is not a reason to claim it cannot be done, nor is it a valid reason to delete. Notable is notable. Improvable is improvable. Schmidt, 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
With respect, none of those accolades would be considered a "major award". The first link is not independent of the subject. Where is all the significant coverage? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware that WISN was affiliated with Ebony Magazine. Or is it that you are claiming that WISN is not allowed to report on a Ebony Magazine article if the article is about one of their own? Are you rather asking that the Ebony Magazine article inferred by the WISN article itself be brought forward? Or are you saying that Ebony Magazine reporting on African Americans is un-usable as not being "independent" of the subjects of their reports? I will opine that those "accolades" for an African American are certainly of note to the African American community of readers. And while "independent" is a concern, in reading WP:NEWSORG, it is seen that news aggencies reporting on themselves such should be considered on a case-by-case basis, as we are discussing information being provided by a news agency with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that these informations are in multiple reliable sources tends to give them more credence than less. Schmidt, 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (- nom) after three weeks JForget 00:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability given. References that are used show that he existed but not that he was individually notable per Knowledge's standards. Had tangential involvement in a notable case, but that does not suggest individual notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Magic Hour (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single not sufficiently notable to have it's own pageGerardw (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For All We Know (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bands notability appears to be based on having notable musicians but all the blue linked members only claim to notability is being in two notable bands, one of which is For All We Know. Without For All We Know they are not notable making the band not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing else satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep ʎɐʍɥbıɥɹɯ (ʇ/ɔ/6) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, second-level notability at best. Insufficient reliable sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Author Keep, the band is essentially a side-project of Sleeping with Sirens, and think of The Color of Violence. I know someone will whip out that other stuff exists, but please hear me out. The band consists of two members of From First to Last, who are not notable without The Color of Violence, and yet the band is considered notable. This is the exact same situation, as there are two members of a band who originally formed another band. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 03:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Bands with individually notable members need something more than just "notable members" to pass WP:GNG. They've done nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be much in terms of coverage. Simply having marginally notable members is not enough. None of their releases seem to have any sort of notability. First source duplicates their MySpace profile. The second is a video. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus indicating he has enough coverage to merit an article JForget 01:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe Brooks (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability. The main claim to fame seems to be popularity on Myspace. There are local radio/press promotional interviews but that seems to be all. His own YouTube page describes him as "Just another bedroom musician" which seems to be a fair summary. Previous attempts at establishing articles - Joe Brooks (Singer) and Joe Brooks (Pop singer) have been deleted Oo7565 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

*KEEP According to the notability guidelines listed under music, an artist is notable if they meet ANY of the criteria listed. Joe Brooks meets two criteria points:

1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
As linked in the references section, Joe Brooks has been on BBC radio, interviewed for the Birmingham Mail, AND Magazine, and other sources.
4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Some of the articles referenced point to his sold out UK Tour from February/March 2009.

In addition, please note that there is a non-trivial article about Joe Brooks on the AOL owned PopEater: http://www.popeater.com/2010/06/07/joe-brooks-debuts-superman-in-new-york/

Those points alone meet the guidelines set by wikipedia for notability.

As for the "bedroom musician claim," there is no reference to it in the main article. Therefore any reference to it by the user who marked this article for deletion is irrelevant.

Joe has also released a video for his first single through VEVO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otx0Bnru0dY&feature=avmsc2

He also received a write up from Seventeen Magazine calling him the next John Mayer. http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/joe-brooks-video-clip

Since the original failed attempt at deletion last year, Joe Brooks has released a single as well as a date for a major-label album.

The user that market this for deletion says that his only claim to fame is myspace popularity. However, myspace has over 5 million bands/artists . So the fact that Joe Brooks is listed as often listed as the number one artist means that he is very notable. Myspace might not be traditional media yet, but as digital downloads and streams surpass physical sales, Myspace has become more and more important . Evilkarrot (talk) August 3rd, 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Please also note the Seventeen article and the AOL article.Evilkarrot (talk) August 9th, 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of unreleased ABBA songs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just Like That (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines on several counts. It is a demo track which was not released anywhere in the world and therefore did not chart anywhere. The article contains the grand total of two references, so it cannot be judged notable due to significant independent coverage in reliable sources. It also fails on the count of being covered by other notable artists - the article clearly states that the actual song has not been recorded by other people, only parts of the song has been extrapolated into other recordings. The song is already covered on the List of unreleased ABBA songs page which is where it rightly belongs Paul75 (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

TranscUlturAl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deprodded by IP. Original PROD reason was "Rather new journal with only 2 published (annual) issues yet. Apparently not abstracted or indexed anywhere. No independent sources. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." Since the prod was removed, the following statement was added to the article (and to the journal's homepage): "The journal is indexed on humanities bibliographies such as the Modern Language Association and Benjamins Translation Studies". These are not major, selective databases. On the article's talk page, the same IP that deprodded claims to be an editorial board member and ask for "Knowledge's support", which is not really what WP is about. There are no independent sources. In all, it seems that the original PROD reason still holds and I therefore nominate this article for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Purush Pal#Educational institutions. JForget 00:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Purush Pal Wasiria Government Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school with no assertion of notability. No school district to redirect to. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Darryl Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The article gives examples given of what Dobbs has written, unfortunately no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Dobbs, So fails WP:GNG. More refs have been added since the article was proded, but still nothing that meets notability requirements Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. "I tried to put this page through for him three years ago but was declined." Wholly non-notable spam piece. Article uses deceptive methods in an attempt to mask lack of notability (refspam for example). For example, it says "Labeled an "honest-to-goodness expert" on fantasy hockey by the editors of Yahoo! Sports". This goes to an article written by nobody other than himself. The actual bit isn't part of the article but safe to say he had a huge say in deciding what went into it. Saying his website was "referenced" by ESPN's John Buccigross is an attempt to play up its importance. It was simply mentioned in his question and answers section with his readers in his column. All the refs are either things he has written, coverage from minor publications, or brief mentions. Very little towards WP:N. Reads like a promotional piece. Both himself and his website fail WP:BIO and WP:WEB easily. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (- nom) after two weeks JForget 00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Luis Rodríguez (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some claims of notability, but I can find no substantial coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:CREATIVE. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing substantial coverage in WP:RS. So far we have one mention on the Modern Talking reference (an Argentinian radio station) and a few lines on the Discogs database, a user contributed site which is not a reliable source. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, get a Modern Talking album then. Rodríguez has been always credited on their productions. Diego Grez 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That is not a helpful response. Please read our policies on reliable sourcing and notability. Thank you. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not my fault that there are no 'reliable' sources around, but there is the cover of Back for Good, that says "Co-produced by Luiz Rodriguez". That one was one of the best-selling albums in 1998. Diego Grez 16:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't said that it is your fault that there appear to be no reliable sources giving substantial coverage, but might I suggest that you search for that coverage in likely magazines and other media. If the subject is notable then they must have received coverage. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the sides presents a convincing argument. The "merge" votes are literally votes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

European Voynich Alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability, seems to be specific to a small group of specialists, with no third-party coverage whatsoever. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - of interest to students of linguistics and history. Merger is a bad idea for such a long parent article. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Being of interest to certain people is no argument at all. As for the merge problem, the parent article is probably going to be split soon anyway, at which point this could remain in the parent article. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Petri - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you even read the rest of the discussion? The article isn't about the Voynich Characters (which is indeed a notable subject), but a specific method of transcribing said characters. This method of transcription (read:the subject of the article) is non-notable, having no significant third-party coverage. If this article was to cover other transcription methods, as Petri suggested, (I know of no such other methods), it would have to be under another name, with essentially the entire article as it now stands removed, as non-notable. As such, there is no good reason to keep, merge, or move this article. A redirect may be in order, though I can't imagine what it would redirect to. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Obigo Browser. Consensus seems to hold that the company is not in itself sufficiently notable. I'd emphasise Christopher Connor's point that the browser itself is certainly ambiguous in its notability, and would suggest that the target article should probably receive additional sourcing to avoid deletion itself. ~ mazca 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Obigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability requirements and lacks third party sources. Eeekster (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. the core issue here isn't "notability" but verification, aftr two weeks on afd, and four years as an article, there's simply not one solid source here. Sandstein arguement is persuasive, and nothing else in this debate serves to refute it. Scott Mac 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Spiky (hairstyle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" has apparently been on Knowledge since 2006. It has been longer. It has been shorter. It has contained pictures of celebrities. It has been edit-warred over. What it has never had are any REFERENCES. I don't know if this topic is NOTABLE because I don't know if this topic even exists. Are such hairstyles really referred to generically as 'spiky'??? Do we have any evidence of this? Is there even the slightest suggestion that the term 'spiky hairstyle' is a notable one? Should this be in the encyclopaedia? As far as I can see, this is an utterly non-notable neologism, and should be banished forthwith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Editors should note that a substantial chunk of text was added back into the article after I nominated it. This chunk is not only utterly unsourced but largely unrelated and had been removed previously (not by me) to reduce the article to a stub. I am of the opinion that whichever version you pick, it is still non-notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Fantasy hair styling on the technicality that it is completely unsourced and apparently fours years have been unable to come up with any WP:RS; I certainly have not been ableto come up with any and most of what the Internet offers is mirrors of various previous Knowledge versions. Merging it would be a possible solution, and any legally usable photos will prove that such styles exist.--Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That might work. Fantasy hair styling is a bit tenuous, but it does have a couple of references. It seems to be more talking about hairstyling for films or the catwalk though, whereas the cactus styles originated on the street. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Arjunr240576, please take a few moments to read WP:AFD which will explain this process more fully. The AfD will remain open for a minimum of seven days, for the community to comment. At the end of that time, an administrator will close the AfD and carry out any action there was community consensus for. Badgering me to 'remove' the AfD isn't going to get it closed faster, all it will do is get you into more trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What trouble? And you said more.......too. What was the trouble in which I have been messed up??? Asking this question, will cause me to get into more trouble too? Then this is not what I have heard about wikipedia. Administrators rule here! Arjunr240576 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep and cleanup. The term "spiky" when applied to a hairstyle is obviously notable. In fact, Google, Google books, and Google news all turn up a truly overwhelming number of relevant hits. For instance, here is a hair stylist's book discussing various spiky hairdos. I'm not claiming to have found an authoritative source for the article, but the term is obviously notable. Tag with the relevant cleanup templates (or, better yet, clean it up yourself), and move on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you own a copy of this book? (don't mean not to AGF, but it doesn't mention spiky styles anywhere, and rhe reviews say it features bridal styles, not street styles, so I wondered where you got your info from)Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me say that I definitely don't find this very GF-assuming. Look at the index entry on page 303, please. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover spiky styles in great detail, but saying that "it doesn't mention spiky styles anywhere" is completely false. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: the editor above did a google book search for spiky hairstyle stylist The source he gives does not come up if you search only for spiky hairstyle, but it does if you search on hairstyle stylist . It's an easy mistake not to check which of your multiple search terms have been picked up - I've done it myself. If you search for 'spiky hairstyle', you do get a lot of hits, going back to the Minoans of Crete. The problem I have is that you get a lot of hits if you search for Blue dress, but that doesn't have an article because it's not a notable topic. No-one has written books or papers on blue dresses - or spiky hairstyles. In fact, the word seems to be used to describe a number of different styles: the punk styles like the Mohawk, the 80s Mullet (particularly as worn by Rod Stewart where it was spiked on top), very short hair that sticks up all over , untidy styles more recently referred to as bedhead hair, short curly hair where the tips of the curls are visible (this from a description of some ancient artefact), hair like Shockheaded Peter, afro hair that has been straightened and brushed upwards the boxing promoter, Don King], styles resembling dreadlocks or cornrows (another historical one), Arnie in the movie Predator - I could go on. In short, I don't think it's one defined thing, like Red hair or Mullet, and as such, I still don't think it is notable. I think it's just two words that collided to describe any kind of hair that sticks up a bit, whether it's styled that way or not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Except the hit that I linked above does include relevant content, which I honestly don't understand how you missed. The reason I searched for this choice of words is that if I searched under "spiky hair", I was getting all sorts of irrelevant stuff (novels, etc). I wanted a source that addressed the topic specifically from the stylists point of view, and that is exactly what I found. What we really need is someone with access to trade magazines to dig up some full length sources that address the subject in detail, but the notability seems to me to be beyond question. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Since I myself lack access to trade magazines, I must settle for sources of lesser quality. A few seconds of Googling turns up this article on the spiky style, which does address the subject in detail. Unfortunately, the source may not quite pass muster. But I think that WP:BEFORE here demands that someone should actually check the trade literature in order to conclude the lack of notability. The fact that "spiky hair" gets too many hits (as your above post suggests) is rather dubious grounds for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked if you have the book because I'm reliant on google books, and the only reference seems to be this "you may love your spiky crop..." If it says more, could you perhaps quote what it says. As to the google hits, what I'm saying is that there isn't a notable definition of Spiky hair - it's not 'a topic', it's just a collision of words. If any kind of hairdo that sticks up can be called spiky, its not a topic, and the dictionary definition of the word 'spiky' would be adequate to describe it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested by Kudpung, no significant coverage in reliable sources given and I can't locate any. Hekerui (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:V, a core policy, we do not have an article about a topic if there are no reliable sources for that topic. The websites currently cited in the article (, , ) seem to be random commercial/personal/blog sites and hence not reliable. The hairstyle obviously exists, but it only gets to have an article after somebody has described it in some depth in a reliable source. Since the content is essentially unsourced, it should not be merged.  Sandstein  09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Brewery Verhaeghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this brewery has not been effectively established. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been improved upon and the notability of this brewer has been established. Their most famous beer already had an article and the brewery was mentioned in that article, so it was already known to wikipedia. Sorry this is not signed, still new to the site and it's templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nox101 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/songs/
  2. ^ "Joe Brooks Debuts Single in New York", , June 7, 2010
  3. Catching Up with Myspace Music, CNet, March 11, 2009
  4. CD Sales Drop, Digital Downloads on the Rise, ZDNet, March 17, 2009

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑