Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

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. Tone 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

John G. Myerson (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 believe that this author and alternative medicine practitioner fails WP:BIO. This may even be an example of self-promotionalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:50, 7 June 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 G5. — ξ 05:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Monster's Inc. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is apparently being used as a grammatically-incorrect alternate title to avoid the previously-established consensus at the Monsters Inc. 2 redirect that this subject does not warrant an article. It should either be moved to Monsters Inc. 2 if it is agreed that it now qualifies for its own article, or deleted as an implausible typo of the correct spelling. GiftigerWunsch 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I'm not necessarily saying a clear or even formal consensus (I haven't seen a discussion), but looking at the history of the redirect at the other spelling seems to indicate that these changes have been rejected at that page, and that this one is being used to escape attention from the editors who turned the correct spelling into a redirect. GiftigerWunsch 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if that was what you meant. Fair enough and thanks for the clarification --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 5 June 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 a7 nonnotable, g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Techtunes (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 have too many issues to adress. I think that it is better to just delete it, and then afterwards recreate it, when the issues have been adressed. Heymid (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fails WP:GNG patsw (talk) 22:40, 5 June 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. Tone 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Khairi Izwan Abdullah (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)

Mid-level academic with a raft of non-significant awards and publications. Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 5 June 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. Tone 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Von Aachen's Disease (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 CSD hoax. Without any sources at all and no web content at all to be found this looks like a giant hoax to me. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment The link to the painter results from the use of a redirect of the same name as the "doctor's" so this isn't really a piece of evidence for a hoax. Still, the rest smells fishy. De728631 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've de-linked the name. Peridon (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment No ghits for von Aachen or Strauss, never mind the disease. I would also point out that fluid oozing from the scalp is unlikely to be a symptom of fluid causing pressure on the brain. Cerebro-spinal fluid can leak from the ear in cases of fracture of base of skull, and this is one of the surest diagnoses of this condition (along with the gibberish uttered by the victim...). However, in the absence of a fracture, the skull prevents the loss of fluid from the region of the brain. This is why Subarachnoid haemorrhage can be fatal. (I have personally dealt with three cases of fractured skull (one having a fractured femur as well), and my 12 year old cousin probably saved her father's life by her prompt calling of the ambulance when he had a brain haemorrhage.) I would like to see more evidence in almost any language for this condition, and more description of its mechanism. Also, von Aachen could not have detected PTSD as such in his patients, as the term only originated in the 1970s. These things can be back-diagnosed, but this should be explained and made clear. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Going for Delete in the absence of any more info from the creator of the article (and after conferring with medical friends who also can't see the connection between pressure on the brain and oozing from the scalp). Peridon (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Coment Von Aachen referred to PTSD as "shell-shock." WE know know that shell-shock is real and that it is PTSD. Mucussummery (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Von Aachen's Disease is not a hoax. It isn't a widely publicized disease, but it is, nonetheless, real. There is some literature on it, but I'm not sure if it would be acceptable to cite because the literature is in book form. Mucussummery (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I can provide one main source, it will just take me a few minutes to get it into the proper citation format. It's an article called "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work over the Past 12 Years" published in 1938 by Dr. Strauss. It was originally a German article with a German title, but I only have the English translation.Mucussummery (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strauss, Dietrich A. "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work Over the Past 12 Years." Die Deutschen Medizinischen Zeitschrift 8 Sept. 1938: original pages unknown. Print.

(the information above was taken from a small note before the English translation of the original article)

I also have digital scans of some of the pages from Dr. Von Aachen's journals. Mucussummery (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment There is no ghit for 'Die Deutschen Medizinischen Zeitschrift'. Using 'der', there are 10. Two appear to refer to a specific magazine - one reference is in a German forum and I can't pin down the person quoted as writing in the magazine to it anywhere else, and the other is to a magazine in 1919. (Another of the 10 is now unavailable, but contained the same text about 1919.) The others are generic. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The correct title, if true, would be "Die Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift" or simply "Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift", none of which seem to exist. The only similar publication would be Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, est. 1875, which has been running under that title ever since. Searching the inventories of the university libraries of Kiel, Rostock, Jena and Magdeburg did not come up with any journal called "Deutsche Medizinische Zeitschrift". Neither do you get Google results for "von Aachen'sche Krankheit" in German. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A more thorough search revealed this: , , , so "Deutsche medizinische Zeitschrift" at least did exist. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Mucussummery, can you provide the original German title of that alleged review by Strauss in 1938? Given the circumstances of the era, no German journal would have published their articles in English. Not to mention "summery". De728631 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit: and sources in book form are of course welcome. Please provide them all with the original titles and publishers. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I should like to know more of the detail of the symptoms, and the reasoning that the condition is genetically linked. I am also somewhat puzzled by mucus oozing from the scalp, as this is (in humans at least) virtually always an internal secretion found in the respiratory, digestive and reproductive systems. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know a bit more about the recent cases mentioned too - where were they reported? Peridon (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Why to scrofula? It doesn't sound much like it to me. That's mainly in the lymph nodes of the neck, and I've never heard of pressure of fluid on the brain being part of it. Peridon (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles about historical diagnoses (which this appears to be) should include secondary sources like other history articles, so that they can be compared to modern medicine. Narayanese (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified, and makes no sense medically. "Mucus" oozing from pores? Pores do not secrete mucus. The treatment ("tubes put inside the head"?) seems to assume some kind of connection where pressure or fluid inside the brain causes oozing through the scalp; how this fluid would penetrate the skull is not explained. Conflicting etiologies - genetics, stress, aging, etc. - are cited without explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 11 June 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. Akirn (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Borg El Arab Stadium (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 references or sources have been added since October 2008. -- φ OnePt618 φ 21:17, 5 June 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, see evidence below, also WP:CSD#G7 author requests deletion (by filing this AfD) - take your choice. We do not need to let this run any longer. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

House of Lichtenberg (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 was made before we got in contact with the Bavarian state archives for proof, Karl Franz was only made a count not a Prince.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichtenberger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 June 2010

  • Keep and correct The title doesn't say anything about a prince and erroneous information inside the article can be fixed within a minute. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind to delete. The findings I have explained on the article's talk page make me believe that this alleged House of Lichtenberg as described here, is not any older than its official website. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Copied from the article talk for inclusion in this log:
What I can tell already from scratch is that File:Greatarmssmall.PNG is based on a principal arms style with a prince's hat as crest and a principal mantling, so if Franz Karl was "only" made a count, it is most certainly not his coat of arms. Could it be that this coat of arms was only recently created? The following is an extract from the chronicle found on the town of Lichtenberg's website:
  • 1248 Lichtenberg is inherited by the Counts of Orlamünde.
  • 1427 Lichtenberg is sold to the Earls of Waldenfels.
  • 1618 Sale of Lichtenberg to the Lithuanian Duke and Prince Janusius Radziwill
  • 1628 Lichtenberg sold again, to Margrave Christian of Brandenburg
  • 1792 Lichtenberg becomes Prussian.
  • 1810 Lichtenberg becomes Bavarian.
There is no mentioning of any "Counts of Lichtenberg" as such. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
J. B. Rietstap's Armorial général p. 64 (in French) mentions the Barons of Lichtenberg in Saxe-Coburg, which would have included the town of Lichtenberg, Upper Franconia, the blazon is completely different from File:Greatarmssmall.PNG though: argent (or azure), two chamois horns sable ajar. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually no - that's the , which was an "exclave" of Saxe-Coburg - it was so remote from their base of operations that they sold it off.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
For reference, the blazon of File:Greatarmssmall.PNG would be: or, an eagle sable, clawed and tongued red, legs and beak or, with a coronet or ; a mantling gules and ermine with a prince's hat. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong Delete Just noticed that the AfD nom comes from the creator of the article. Apart from which, I quote from the About Us page of the Official Website: "The Fürstentum Lichtenberg Foundation was founded in March 2010 by Prince Maximilian to manage the Principality financially and universally to bridge the gaps between the Government, Princely House, and the people of Lichtenberg. The foundation handles donations to keep Lichtenberg tax free." My first thought is 'Who are they trying to kid?'... The only Germanic Principality in political existence is the Fürstentum Liechtenstein (interesting similarity of name), which is not tax free, however. I do wonder how many of the 'people of Lichtenberg' know about their young prince. I suggest looking at the application form for 'citizenship' (which makes reference to the State Secretary for the Interior' and to the 'Sovereign Prince' (and I note that one of the two places your info will be stored is on a "flash dive" (sic) in the Interior Office). Possibly a new micronation? Possibly not... Peridon (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly a {{db-hoax}}. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Searching for sources, I kept running into other Lichtenbergs - but zero on this house. So I have to conclude that they are not notable. Either that or the info is seriously wrong. This DAB page on de.wikipedia lists numerous places called Lichtenberg, and several castles, and leads to a whole additional DAB page for Burg Lichtenberg, including the castle at the Bavarian Lichtenberg. There was a Principality of Lichtenberg, but it was at the other end of Bavaria and the territory is now partly in Saarland, partly in Rhineland-Palatinate. It came into existence in 1816 and received both the designation as a principality and the Lichtenberg name in 1819. There is also a former Alsatian House of Lichtenberg, first mentioned in the 12th century, which died out in the male line in the 15th century, after which the name continues through the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg. These Lichtenbergs and their Burg Lichtenberg are quite prominent online and in Google Books, but I just can't find the family this article refers to, in either German or English. So possibly there is some confusion with one of the other Lichtenberg locations or histories, but unless that is the case, I find no evidence of notability. Those with expertise in heraldry and documentation of nobility may find something, but I haven't. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I don't claim to be an expert in heraldry or genealogy but I have been into my own family's history and a possible coat of arms so I can tell that there is something totally wrong with this article. And as German nobility have always been quite aware of their heritage I do wonder why it would have been necessary to contact the Bavarian state archive for details only 100 years after leaving the country. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I note from the page that this principality was in the possession of a familiar dynasty for Brits - (as we call it) Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (or probably some variant of that - they got a bit complicated at times). And, unless I read it wrongly, the principality was sold to Prussia in 1834 (subject to a ground rent of 80,000 thalers annually. (I am open to correction on this.) Peridon (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Yngvadottir's research. The only source is the one-page website, hosted in the US, which is still talking about a "Princely House" of Lichtenberg although that claim has been retracted here. This looks extremely dodgy - I note that the website is inviting "donations". At best, this seems to be an attempt at self-promotion to the nobility. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: a whois lookup for the domain reveals that the site is registered to a certain Mr. J. Langel. The article Maximilian Graf von Lichtenberg by User:Lichtenberger states that Maximilian von Lichtenberg is the son of Marie von Langel. You don't simply invent a von nor do you leave it away if you're a member of true German nobility (who would certainly not fall for such attempts of self-promotion because they know their peers). Furthermore: "Registrant Organization: Lichtenburg". Burg or berg? Sounds all the same in English, so who cares? De728631 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You can see what that one's up to: "The Sovereign may grant honourary status vis-a-vis diplomatic appointments, grant chivalric orders, titles, or other ranks of nobility or distinction" - in return for a fee, no doubt. Perhaps this one hopes to go into the same business, but it might turn competitive... JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 6 June 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 The result was Delete---Balloonman 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bert Mizusawa (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)

An article about a candidate for a nomination in Virgina with a classic case of WP:COI. Only real editors are the people he is paying to promote him by creating this article. Rohedin 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm responding to this correctly, but I hope you do not delete the Bert Mizusawa article. I'm a volunteer trying to help out, and don't know how else to create a wiki page without using the information from the campaign. I'm happy to re-do, but would love some guidance! (I'm new at this!) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Va02GOP (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By any chance are you also User:BertMizusawaForCongress? Rohedin 20:59, 5 June 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. Tone 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of schizophrenic fictional characters (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)

Completely unreferenced, speculative WP:OR. Many entries probably added by people who don't know what schizophrenia is. I am only familiar with one of these characters, River Tam, who AFAIK displays nothing even close to schizophrenia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indenting vote of indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Ah, the good old "what's next?" argument. Fortunately, nothing came next for this 2007-vintage unsourced, uninteresting bullshit list of names. Mandsford 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete 3 of the characters articles mention this 'diagnosis', but there are no references to support this (except for maybe one). one character had the diagnosis removed by the company marketing it after complaints from the APA. see, thats the problem. WE cant diagnose, the creator must state the character is (even if the character doesnt show accurate symptoms), or the other characters in the fictional world refer to them as such, or the character says "i am a schizophrenic". just cause a character is different in some way that people think means schizophrenia, dont make it so for fictional characters. they dont exist. remember? all we know is what is said about them. there is a lot true about me that is not said by me or others, because i am real, and this info could one day be sourced if i was notable and someone could figure it out. (at least i think i am).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if the list were more clearly defined ('as diagnosed by x'), it's still not an encyclopedia article. First Light (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. I know it isn't that long, but considering there is no lead section, it seems like the article exists just for the purpose of being an unsourced list. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:17, 6 June 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. JForget 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Adventures of Maddog Williams in the Dungeons of Duridian (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 can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 5 June 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. Tone 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Élie de Rothschild (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)

Repairing a malformed nomination; User:Nineteen Nightmares, the original nominator, had recopied the entire article into this page with a prod template at the top. His reasoning was that subject has done nothing of note, with the exception of having been born into an extremely wealthy banking family, having of course "run" one of the family's many businesses. The rest of the article talks about his time in the army and private family life, with little to no public value. This is strictly a procedural nomination to repair a user error; no vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I won't be nominating anything more for a while. My first time, had to go wrong I suppose. Anyway, thanks for the assist. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteeen Nightmares
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lilystars Records (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 record label. Repeated contested CSD A7. GregJackP (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Added references from major broadsheets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.234.135 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I moved this from where it had been inappropriately added (at the start of the nom) to the correct spot (chronological order). Had it not been in the nom area, and thereby confusing the issue, I would have left it where posted. GregJackP (talk) 11:48, 7 June 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.

Revised verdict to Delete based upon ]. Most of the keeps, particularly at the end of the discussion, which helped sway the final outcome have been determiend to be either sock or meat puppets of the page founder. In his defense at the SPI investigation, Dmartinaus wrote, It is a stressful position to be in when it's YOUR business reputation on the line (and this Wikipeida site and the editing process pops up regularly on Gogle Alerts), and when YOU are the one being accused of truly astounding falsehoods. Well, the article would have probably been deleted without the puppetry to begin with and if he is worried about his public persona, then leaving an article on Knowledge (XXG) which is directly tied to his puppetry/misconduct here will only highlight the unethical behavior he has exhibited. Deleting the article won't remove it from the wikiclones and it won't hide the other stuff that has transpired, but oh well.---Balloonman 03:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In light of the unusual circumstances surrounding this case, I'm sending it to DRV for review. I'm leaving it deleted, but will have others look at it and agree or disagree with my verdict.---Balloonman 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The result was Keep Marginal notability, but enough to be kept... plus, the trend seems to be in that direction. While the person who claims to be Don, and I have no reason to doubt him, does not want the article to be deleted, if he changed his mind I would support his desire (after proving his identity) but as he supports keeping it and the consensus supports that as well, I think the result is a clear keep.---Balloonman 05:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs) (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 local PR figure; good reason to suspect this of being autobiographical (or created at his behest and with his involvement) Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - clearly notable, this was addressed in detail at Talk:Don Martin (public affairs), numerous references, both already included in article and that are not yet cited. Concur that this article is either WP:AB or at the least WP:COI, however neither of these are valid reasons for deletion if the subject is notable. For disclosure purposes, I have edited the Lawsuit section of the article and participated extensively in talk page discussions. GregJackP (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per prior consensus: There has already been a discussion about the notability of this article, as well as a detailed discussion on the article later, involving several (at least 6) editors without any further mention of an issue of notability. There is a long list of reliable sources which firmly establish the article's notability, which is why the "notable" template was removed from the article several days ago. GiftigerWunsch 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - this article has also gone through the Request for Comment process and was listed at the AN/I board. The reviewing admin did not question the notability of the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Article reads like a resume for his company as much as the loads of droll biographical blather is nearly meaningless to the average reader. In other words, who cares about some PR firm or its egotistical owner? Notable or not, this type of article doesn't have any business being on Knowledge (XXG). I also have to wonder with all the "keeps" that have popped up so far, do we have a sock, or perhaps some other individuals close to the article that are trying to weigh it in favor or keep? It smells like fish in here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Allegedly reading like a resume is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. Please be aware that BLP applies to all pages on Knowledge (XXG), not just articles, and describing the article subject as "its egotistical owner" is unacceptable. Please refrain from insulting named, living people or you will be blocked. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The claim that the subject is an "author" is dubious at best. In reality, he published a book of old postcards. I'd hardly call that authorship, maybe not even much editorship. Once again, that fishy smell is in the air. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
  • Undecided. I'm not sure I care one way or the other, however I can positively assure you that the two editors above have no relationship to, familiarity with or concerns for the subject of the article. The extensive and much heated debate ove the lawsuit section shows their lack of concern (no offense intended here)about the reputation or future of Martin. There was some discussion of the need to "fill out" some of the prior sections to blance the lawsuit paragraph, so this morning I added a list of organizations taken from the subject website. I will now revert those since that may be part of what triggered your concern. But the decision on the notability is up to other editors, including those above as well as others, and not me. Austin3301 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
However, I do take great exception to your rude, unneccessary and snide comments about the author section. Arcadia Press is an estblished independent press (not a vanity press) and the book is legititmate. It is available on Amazon, Borders, Barnes&Noble on-line as well as in their stores, local museums, etc. It is a valued Austin history book and not "a book of old postcards." Get your facts straight and stop being offensive and rude with your uneducated and biased personal opions. Personal POV and most certainly personal attacks do not have a place here. Austin3301 (talk)
I see that the organizations have already been removed which is fine. I do not agree with Nightmare's slash editing of the opening paragraph which is part of what constitutes notability, and therefore I have reverted it back. What do others think? Austin3301 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
Comment The "slash editing" you refer to was intended to improve the article as the opening sentence should lay out the subject in a quick and concise way, without padding. The items you have included in the opening paragraph are repeated ad nauseum in the article, so they are duplicitous and I included that in my reason for editing. A reversion does not make it look encyclopedic, it makes it look like you are trying too hard. My only intent on Knowledge (XXG) is to weed out non notables and help to improve bad articles on good subjects so they can be retained. I do not even know this man. But my feeling is that the article is a vanity piece and in no way beneficial to the general reader on Wiki. That is my opinion and I have stated it. There is nothing personal here, even if you took it that way. Why are you taking one editor's opinion as such a personal affront, if I might ask? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares
  • Comment - Nineteen Nightmares - I would caution you to be very careful before accusing an editor or editors of sockpuppetry. I noted that you have recently starting editing so I would, assuming good faith, believe that you have not taken to the time to read the Talk:Don Martin (public affairs). If you had done so, you would have seen that the main proponent of the article (and the one that probably has a WP:COI) was on one side of an argument on the lawsuit section and both Giftiger & I were on the other side, along with several other editors. I would strongly recommend that you read the talk page before making any other accusations of fishy aromas. As to notability, please check the standards of WP:GNG - there are 28 references listed and several that had been removed in the content dispute reselution process. There is plenty more that hasn't been added to the article to show notability, including a series of articles on Martin's representation during the discussion of a possible sale of Austin's city owned utility company and other controversies. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As the subect of the article (Martin) I am offering an opinion here on the talk page only, where it is alllowed. I have no problem with deletion of the site. What started out as someone entirely unrelated to me starting the original site in a positive manner has turned into a lie-awake-at-night nightmare for me. I'm an Austin-area-only public affairs consultant who, like many such consultants, sometimes take on highly controversial subjects. The prospect (referred to above by GregJackP) of having each and every one drug out through heated battles like was done with the lawsuit is terribly unfortunate, distressing and unnecessarily damaging without the ture story ever being told. (Especially when the cite and "facts" used for such attacks is likely to be a local counter-culture weekly and not a mainstream newspaper) Quite frankly I'm just not that notable. I work city issues, not legislative issues, and I do a heck of a lot of good work in the community, and have many excellent references aong the leaders of the community references. The direction of this site, for reasons I do not understand, is now apparently aimed at permanently damaging my reputation, my livilihood, my friends and clients, and most of all my family. And for no reason other than someone started a simple site deveoted to saying positive -- mostly resume-like -- things about me. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy keep -- Likely created at the behest of the subject matter, but the subject has been vetted, and balancing information has been added and discussed in a vigorous debate over the course of several days. An admin has contributed to the article via proposed draft of lawsuit section. Several non-interested editors, including myself, have participated in editing the article and balancing its content for neutrality. The subject is clearly notable when held against the Wiki criteria for notability. Reliable coverage here: etc. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
GregJack has kindly pointed out to me that I should not have commented on deletion of the page to which I am the subject. I apologize as I thought (obviously incorrectly) that I could add material to the talk page for editors to consider. One must admit that trying to keep up with all the rules here is a daunting task. Thanks (I mean it) to Greg for letting me know. But as you can see above it is a touchy subject for me and I appear to be in for a constant continuing barrage of attacks. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Don, you are most welcome to comment on the deletion discussion. As the article subject, you're entitled to make a comment here. The Conflict of Interest guideline only advises that article subjects be careful about how they contribute to such discussion, it certainly doesn't prohibit a reasoned comment from the subject. You have been open about who you are and your comments to this page have been very reasonable and are most welcome. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete on what grounds? While autobiographies are discouraged, it is still possible for the subject of an article or an affiliate to write a neutral article about the subject. Not all articles with a COI should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with C.Fred. "Autobiographical" is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it and certainly not to speedy it. We do accept autobiographies here. We discourage it because most people have great difficulty writing about themselves in a policy compliant manner, but if someone does write a neutral, verifiable and policy-compliant article about themselves or a subject with which they have a COI, we will accept it. I'm also not so sure that this is actually an autobiography. Looking at the article history, it seems that the few edits made by the subject have been completely rewritten by other editors. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The subject himself has apparently weighed in and is in favor of deletion for personal reasons. That's a fairly good reason for a speedy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares
  • Comment - A subject approving or requesting deletion of an article about himself is not reason for a speedy delete, and it is not even reason for deletion, period. Please review WP:CSD, WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which states:
If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absoluteand non-negotiable, and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Knowledge (XXG).

Minor4th (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct. We certainly can and do take into account the views of the article subject. We're not obliged to honor them but we do take them under advisement. This is especially the case for non-public figures who are of borderline notability (which would seem to be the case here). This is covered by the deletion policy, specifically: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional comment -- although I think the article should stay, mostly because I participated in an ongoing discussion that resulted in a consensus, everyone involved in editing should be extra cautious about the content and keep in mind that Don Martin's real life is affected by what is written. Negative info should be presented with extreme sensitivity toward neutrality. To Dmartinaus (talk), I imagine this process is very stressful, but a cold reading of the article about you does not paint you in a negative light or portray you as a bad guy, in the balance. You're a big name in PR, and there is nothing in the article that is not available elsewhere on the internet for anyone to read. It does not reflect poorly on your family, and I see nothing about the article that would damage your clients or your reputation. It is clear you have controversial clients -- why else would they need a PR consultant? Try not to lose sleep because it is not as negative as you perceive. I don't think anyone is trying to harm you. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate section copied from a user talk page removed. This discussion is for comments directly relevant to the AfD process only. GiftigerWunsch 07:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


  • Bowing Out. It sounds like the decision to keep the article is pretty much decided in that it takes an overriding majority to delete an article (or the decision of an administrator). But in fact an administrtor actually helped write portions of the piece. Even if tagged for speedy delete, any one editor can prevent that.
In addition, I have to admit that I have perhaps been too close to the situtation and subject, and at times too emotional, to have been offering my own opinion so strongly. However, all edits and the article have been throughly vetted (boy is that an understatement!) and re-edited in many cases by others. Certainly no one person got their way in these very difficult debates. It was collaborative (and at times quite heated) procecss. If there is need for any additional cleanup then by all means go ahead.
So with GregJackP retiring, I will take this as my opportunity to bow out as well. I would suggest and politely ask that some other editor now remove both tags, and to archive and organize the lawsuit discussion (Sections 1, 6, 9 and 10 PLUS the separate subpage re the lawsuit language paraagraph - all into one lawsuit archive). And meanwhile I will henceforth cease all editing. Signing off. Austin3301 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Comment When I have some time, I will do just that. I noticed many, many references, but references are supposed to be DIRECTLY about the subject, not about his book, business or anything else that does not primarily focus on HIM as the subject of the article. Any URLs in the list that do not mention him explicitly will be removed. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Re comment above PS -- by "clean up" I did not mean whacking off references. I meant the Knowledge (XXG) process of "cleaning up" the article to ensure no indication of bias, personal point of view, or non-neutral tone. Austin3301 (talk)


Leave references as is - Policy dictates a well-referenced article to show notability. Since you are arguing notability issues it would be highly inappropriate for you to remove references. From Notability section "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I recommend no removals without general agreement of the editors already involved. If you have suggestions, Nightmare, then show how the ref does not specifically involve the subject. References on the book, for example, (with the exception of the Amazon link), appear to be articles about the process of writing the book and interviews of him, not reviews of the book itself, therefore they appropriately support the subject of the article. For heaven's sake, Nightmare, how can anyone write about a person and not write about his company, or a book he has written? You have a very strange sense of what references are intended to do. All of these many references appear to me to be well sourced and to the point.4804BT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment - Policy also dictates that controversial edits be discussed on the talk page. As has been stated repeatedly, this article has had extensive discussions on most areas of the article, primarily due to the WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV issues. GregJackP (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010

  • Move page? - shouldn't this page be moved to Don Martin, Austin Texas instead of Don Martin (public affairs). The latter appears more as an advertisement for his company which I assume was not intended since I see that another editor moved it here. 4804BT (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment that is another area of contention. It started out as public affairs, following a discussion based on the same concerns you mentioned (advert) it was moved to Austin, then the admin who initiated this afd moved it back, citing naming conventions (mos). I have no opinion on that, and it's not all that important in an afd (as compared to notability) GregJackP (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion?

  • Wrap up??? Disclosure: I am the subject of the article. I have also made edits over time (although those edits were mostly reversed and the CIO issue has been thoroughly discussed). My goal at this point is to get a relatively quick resolution of the issues. 1) Whether the page is deleted re Notability or not (I will stay out of this on-going discussion although I lean toward keeping it); and 2) terminating the tag re CIO. It appears to mr that both isues have now been throughly vetted both here and on the article talk page. This discussion has now gone on a considerable length of time. If I may ask, can we please decide one way or another and let's remove the tags, or delete the article entirely. It appears to me that editor Sarah above(no relation to me of any kind) perhaps has the best handle on these issues. Thank you. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It usually takes about seven days for the review process to complete and then a supervising editor will make the final determination one way or another. Since it was nommed on June 5 and it is only the 7th, there is still about 5 days before the final tally is made and anything concrete done. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
  • Keep, but with reservations. As the subject of the article I have vacillated over this quite a bit. I guess I favor keep but I have reservations still about the added lawsuit section, as you can imagine. I suppose I would like to see some other areas fleshed out for added balance. I'll leave the final decision to others to decide. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep On balance, I think the varied aspects make him probably notable. The one that I think is clearest is codeveloper of Legi/Slate, important software about which we ought to have an article. There are some comments above that I do not agree with: first, articles about a person's work or publications are of course relevant to his notability--in almost all cases, it is peoples' work that is what make them notable, not the details of their personal biography, though the sources do have to discuss him in the context of that work. My view of the book is that though it can certainly be mentioned, it is not sufficient for notability as an author. As for BLP considerations, I am not sure I consider him a private figure--as he says above--a PR consultant will necessarily be involved in controversial matters. But the section on the lawsuit must mention that he was removed from the case, which proceeded only against the company-- as written, it gives the exact opposite impression. I'm not sure of the exact wording to use, but I restored a wording used earlier. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep --- DGG, I agree that the book itself does not confer notability. But I looked it up (see external link to a book-related site) and it is definitely a legitimate book. It is sold on Amazon for example. It is not self-published or a vanity press book. Apparently it helps fill in an important gap in Austin history and was well received by the reviewers. I mean....how often does anyone write a book? I agree, however, that it does not need any additional mention beyond what is already written in the book section currently. Also, the recent change to list clients in a tabular form is too obtrusive. I am going to revert them back in in-line text or some other more appropriate listing. Jessi0421 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • clarification - vanity press books are generally nominally available on Amazon and through distributors, just as self-issued garage band songs are often available on iTunes; neither is evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you are that concerned please see Arcadia Press at who publishes a Postcard History series of cities around the United States, among other book series. I was paid an advance and a healthy percentage of sales (as opposed to a vanity press where the author pays to have it printed). The book is available on Amazon, Borders, Books-a-million, Hastings, Barnes&Noble and other on-line sites as well as in their physical stores -- a tremendous rarity for a vanity book. ISBN 9780738570679. $21.99 It is very much a legitimate book and was well received in Austin as noted above by others. You can order one from Arcadia at: ] and I'll sign it for you. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, Here's a link to newspaper and independent book editor reviews on the Arcadia website: Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - Even if we all agree -- which I don't -- that the book does not confer notability wouldn't it still be mentioned as it is a significant activity related to the article subject? And noted with citations? (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


  • Delete, after getting to this from the Nineteen Nightmares unblock situation. It seems to me that Mr. Martin is regionally notable. The sources would be impeccable proof of notability if this were the Austin-area wiki. But it's not.

    Austin may be the Texas state capital, and home to the main campus of its state university, but it's still only the fourth-largest city in the state. Now that might not preclude notability if, say, Mr. Martin was active in state politics, even though he is not nor has ever been an elected official. But ... if he were, I'd expect the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio newspapers, or other news outlets, to have mentioned his name in some non-trivial way, and for those non-trivial mentions to be among the sources cited. As Mr. Martin notes above he has been active in local affairs but not state ones. Therefore I don't believe a state-level threshold of notability has been met. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 12 June 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 My Little Pony (TV series). T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My Little Pony (pilot episode) (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 My Little Pony episode was originally called "Rescue from Midnight Castle" and was eventually renamed "Firefly's Adventure". Searching separately with these two titles has resulted in the discovery of an insufficient number of sources to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. As notable as hell. This was (a) before my time (b) something I am no expert or even a fan of and I know better than that.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. I wonder if Spoon Maniac's reaction is predicated on assuming this AfD is nominating "My Little Pony" as a whole. It's not. It's nominating the pilot. Given that "My Little Pony" doesn't have a robust episode-by-episode listing, and there's nothing particularly distinguishable about the pilot that sets it apart as an exemplar of the series, I don't see any reason the material couldn't be merged into the series' entry. WCityMike 00:10, 6 June 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Nick Nasty (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, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT. J04n(talk page) 17:15, 5 June 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

John Forehand (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:Not news Marcus Qwertius (talk) 17:13, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Vocal velocity (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 high school choir, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:57, 5 June 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) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghulam Kibria Khaki (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 autobiography; declined speedy; contested prod (although I didn't tag as either). Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:21, 5 June 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. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Emmeline Hill (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)

Only one of many authors of a single peer-reviewed article. Subject has not been covered by external media, only the article has, this subject does not meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 16:12, 5 June 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 Drip tape. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

T-Tape (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 how-to guide for a supposed method of foreskin restoration. All foreskin restoration topics are seriously fringe to begin with, Knowledge (XXG) is not a how-to guide, and this article has no reliable sources addressing notability or the correctness of the information presented, though it does have some low-value external links. Prod template was removed by an IP whose other recent edits have not improved the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of this usage, but it appears legitimate to me. I have no personal objection to such a redirect, provided consensus agrees with you of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect per East of Borschov. I could find only two printed sources that even mention the subject. Both of these sources are borderline — the first being a chapter in an anti-circumcision activist publication called "Male and Female Circumcision", and the second being a patent application. I did not evaluate the depth of coverage in these sources, as I regard the small number of sources to be evidence of lack of notability by itself. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 6 June 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. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Movie jamUP (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 film that is not on IMDb, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 5 June 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.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reviewed most of the links provided by the people calling for keeping this guy. The links fell into one of two categories. First, most of them dealt with the fact that he was the spokesperson/chairman for various presidential candidates. Being a spokesperson, while high profile, does not make one notable. Second, many of the articles dealt with the fact that he is the grandson of a former VP does not make him notable. Again, this is not grounds for keeping.---Balloonman 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Buck Humphrey (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. Person does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, and notability is not inherited from his grandfather. Unsuccessful candidacy for a state office and work in state campaigns for presidential candidates aren't sufficient to establish notability. Relevant Google News hits seem to deal with his unsuccessful run for office or with decisions not to run for other offices. Current position seems to be as a communications officer for a federal agency. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*Keep The references and links within the article are enough to meet the minimum requirement of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. He worked as the election director for Minnesota for both Gore and Mrs. Clinton, and also made his own (failed) attempt to be elected Secretary of State, and references are shown for all of these facts. But what put it over the top for me was this 2007 reliable and independent source that addressed the subject of Buck Humphrey directly and in detail. That meets WP:GNG and thats a keep. Inniverse (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • A blog. A city newspaper. Another blog. And the website of his employer, which is about as independent and third party as the republicans are moral. Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked as sock of Azviz.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I spent way too much time looking over this article myself. I would have to say that this particular individual is just at the cusp of what might be considered notable, independent of his namesakes that were also politicians. I think in this case perhaps the article is premature. He may end up somebody of some stature and notability, but isn't there yet. If/when he achieves some notable elected position or appointment to office, it would be useful to keep the article but not until then. BTW, I don't mind that the reference to his father and grandfather are in the article, which is something of note about him that does impact voter perception about him as well. The issue is that by itself that isn't something of note other than as a footnote in articles about his father and grand father. The Skip Humphrey article perhaps could be expanded slightly or re-organized to have a section about his children, and including a reference to Buck Humphrey's political ambitions. That shouldn't be more than a sentence or two at most. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of news mention of him. For his failed run for political office, for helping others in their campaigns, and for his DWI arrest. Dream Focus 19:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV announces run for secretary of state Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Dec 6, 2001
  • GOP makes Buck Humphrey face up to DWI arrests;Star Tribune -Oct 16, 2002
  • Minnesota campaign, 30-year-old Buck Humphrey says he's staying … Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Aug 17, 2000
  • Bill Clinton's Minnesota fundraising stop canceled Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - May 22, 2008 Have to pay for full article, but they quote him as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota on occasion.
  • Over 200 results right there to sort through. The ones from the year 2000 onward are from him, you able to easily look through it. All the results require you to pay for the full article, so just read through the title and summaries and you can confirm he has gotten adequate coverage not just for his run for office and things involved in it, but also being campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Dream Focus 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting find. If you take into account all the various branches of the US government, there are about a gazillion schedule C appointees. There are quite a few similar level positions with the USCIS: . I'm curious to know how notable his position is if there isn't any discussion about him or the office. Is there precedent for this in other notability discussions? Location (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Good questions. I see, as you did, that he is listed among the "leadership" of that large U.S. Government agency, but he is one of a number of people. I see him being quoted as a spokesperson for the agency in the press, so he is likely the lead press relations person for the agency. Perhaps not enough for notability by itself, but its an added plus.--Milowent (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Not sure how the AfD got this far with no one noticing ..."? Did you actually read the nomination, Milowent—the last sentence in particular? Deor (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, guess i missed that. I couldn't imagine someone wouldn't update the article--Milowent (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO generally, due to lack of multiple significant WP:RS, etc. Verbal chat
  • Delete - Just on the cusp of failing WP:POLITICIAN, but a fail nonetheless. Recreate the article in a year or two if the subject does something which passes WP:POLITICIAN. SnottyWong talk 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The press is clearly following his career and he operates in Democratic big leagues even if he as a candidate hasn't held high office. A quick check of the amount of coverage shows far more than required for notability in any field. He is mentioned in press across the country including, but certainly not limited to: USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Sacramento Bee, St. Paul Pioneer, Star Tribune, Duluth News Tribune, Toledo Blade, Minnesota Daily, Grand Forks Herald, The Daily Journal. Lineage may be partly the reason but he has some national prominence. Eudemis (talk) 03:47, 11 June 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. obvious consensus/near unanimous for keeping the article JForget 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Manatee Palms Youth Services (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)

Failing to meet WP:N, WP:CORP Joe routt (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment, how does it fail WP:CORP? -Regancy42 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is no inherent notability. The facility has been around for years, yet the article was created less than a month ago, apparently with the purpose of cataloging its audits. Joe routt (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFD is not cleanup. The article needs works and does have POV issues, but that's not an argument for deletion and there appear to be plenty of references covering a period of years that seem sufficient to meet WP:N. It looks like the Criticism section needs review for WP:UNDUE, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Clear notability with multiple reliable sources. Torchiest /contribs 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There is one other article on a Florida psychiatric hospital (and one on a defunct chain of hospitals). A small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • (edit conflict) Keep—to say that "a small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it" is simply untrue. Anyone and anything can be notable if they meet the relevant notability standard, and this page's several references strongly indicate that it does. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    Comment The references are to its criticisms, outside of which it is not notable. Criticism alone is not justification for an article. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    So what? As long as there has been "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" – whether critical or overflowing with praise – the page meets WP:CORP. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This article isn't notable outside its criticisms. Its existence seems to serve little more than a (quite POV) soapbox. Joe routt (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    Comment to closing admin—the above comment is from the nominator, so please be sure you don't count their argument twice, since they have chosen to label it "delete" – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin—there have been suggestions of sockpuppetry in this discussion. See the SPI page and also this – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    I am not a sock. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep While most of the sources are useless for establishing notability, I see significant coverage in the Miami Herald article which is far enough away to be non-local, and the state of florida AHCA document (listed as Propublica) which is full of largely useless boilerplate, but still has 6.5 pages of deficiencies/hospital practices so I think that also qualifies. So while the only usable sources are basically about the same thing - the closing of the hospital - I still think that it squeaks by WP:CORP. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This clearly has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. This clearly meets WP:N. cmadler (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This will be my final comment. This article seems to be a case of WP:COAT. (I hadn't previously known about this classification.) I believe that this article exists only as a vehicle for criticism, and that if it does not pass the nomination for deletion (which I respectfully maintain that it should), that it must be significantly trimmed. Joe routt (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    I tend to agree that it is a coatrack article. However, as Knowledge (XXG):COAT#What to do about coatracks clearly states, fixing the problem is preferable to deletion. WP:COAT on its own is no reason to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cmadler and others. Many references I've reviewed a number of them and found sustained substantial coverage by regional reliable news sources over a period of time on multiple matters. The fact that most of the events that gave rise to the institution's notability are negative ones is not a criticism as such, it's just a series of negative events. Perhaps that comes with the territory of being a mental hospital, particularly a "troubled" one. Although some of the negative items are probably not worth noting in such a short article there are more recent events (an involuntary closure, new claims of abuse, etc.) that are not yet treated in the article. The article has the potential to be a WP:COATRACK and we need to make sure all of this stuff is presented in neutral, encyclopedic form. That probably means getting rid of the "criticism" section in favor of a chronologically or thematically ordered structure. If the article is imbalanced, we can trim at the edges but rather than getting rid of any key events in the institution's history, it would be better to fill out the other sections with a reasonable account of the institution's founding, management, programs, finances, and so on. (note: I was alerted to this discussion by the AN/I report in question) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Normally a small for-profit hospital would not be notable, but this one has been the subject of significant reporting, mainstream and not just local, for some years. I think its current tone is adequately factual, balanced, and neutral. Since most of the reporting is about problems the hospital has had (with state regulators etc.), it's inevitable that the overall effect of the article will be negative. That's not a failure of neutrality; it's the state of nature, based on the sources given. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per cmadler and TreasuryTag. There's obviously significant coverage, and we can improve the article rather than delete it. —fetch·comms 00:24, 12 June 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 without objections to recreation There are a lot of claims to notability, but not a single reliable source. Looking at the sources provided by the nominator show that this guy did write a popular theme song, but none of the links showed independent notability. None of them were substantial about the subject... well there were a few, but they appear to be wiki-mirrors. If somebody wants to come back and recreate this with viable reliable sources, I would fully support recreation. But without real sources, and those I saw didn't support the claims herein (and letters/interviews with the author are not reliable sources) I have to delete.---Balloonman 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Moss (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 musical composer/performer/director does not seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:NMUSIC. The article's claims to significance center around 3 works. I've included relevent searches here:

No reliable sources found in any of these searches. Sources already in the article are dubious at best.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the rest of my post. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I did read the post - "Plenty of notability claimed" - this does not satisfy the WP:N guideline, because 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. There is no such evidence in this case, merely claims. "only if fails should deletion result" - Referencing has failed, as no one has come forward to reference this article, which has existed for more than 3 years. WP:NTEMP: Notability is also not predictable. ...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future. As it does not currently meet the criteria, and you have offered no sources that would establish notability, the article is eligible for deletion according to our guidlines.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:23, 8 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

There is very little indication that the website meets the WP:GNG as the article on "PRWeb" is clearly just a press release for the website, and I have been unable to find a working link to "carnalpedia". Possible hoax or non-notable website. GiftigerWunsch 13:59, 5 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason Scerri (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)

Proposed as part of Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 29th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Knowledge (XXG):WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:38, 5 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tinkernut (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. Deleted multiple times via A7. delete and salt UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Another blogger? I don't see notability and the article reads like a homespun resume rather than a Wiki article. Needs lots of cleanup, both in references and content, to change to a keeper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
  • Delete I see nothing to suggest that this particular blogger is that notable. Plastikspork ―Œ 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing reliable sources with significant coverage. I can't even tell if it's supposed to be about the person or the website or the video series. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question are viral videos notable? How many views does it take for a video to qualify as viral (or notable)? This particular person has at least one video with over 2 million views plus some awards. The reason I didn't delete this article outright a month or two ago was the significant number of views. That and I'm not sure the coverage isn't significant. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    A viral video is only notable if reliable sources cover it, a certain number of views is a measure of popularity, but not necessarily notability. Obviously what amounts to significant coverage is subject to interpretation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    The article lists coverage, is that not significant? Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    At least as I see it, almost all of the links from the article are either not independent sources (being the youtube site or the blog) or just links to the videos (unless I'm missing something), they don't actually talk about the blog/person/videos (as I said above, I can't tell which the article is supposed to be focusing on, but none of them really talk about any of them). The artician.com source has some actual coverage, but it's short and shallow, not what I would call significant coverage. If I am overlooking more coverage, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So why do you have to delete it? Can't we work together and try to improve the article and make it look and sound like a real Encyclopedia article. The article is a bit misunderstandable, but what exactly is it that is understood about it? Is it the misinterpretation of the Website and Blog? If it is I'll try and fix it up.Zaz986 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LiveGraph (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:40, 5 June 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Detachment Kit (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 can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this band. Their only releases are either self-released or on minor labels. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:14, 5 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Arnautović (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)

Daniel Arnautović is not notable as he never played in a fully-professional league. Matthew_hk tc 10:17, 5 June 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fluidic Energy (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 was prodded with reason WP:SOURCES. I think that for broader discussion we need AfD procedure instead. There could be also problems with notability. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep this article - I am simply beside myself on this article, and I suppose that I should be putting a little bit more effort into gathering sources, but this is simply getting insane here. I came across this company in a couple of articles about energy production and noticed that there wasn't anything on Knowledge (XXG) about the company.... so in the spirit of "anybody can edit" I write up an article about that company and do a quick Google search to get some additional sources and information. The very first thing that happens is that the article gets nominated for speedy deletion when I write the first paragraph.

Seriously, this is simply getting insane and to me is a symptom of how awful and desperate the deletionist have become on this project. As for sources, look up Talk:Fluidic Energy and at least read the articles that are about this company.

What does it take, seriously, to write an article on this wiki anymore? Is the standard for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) that a company must be in the Fortune 500 for notability? If there is a problem with the article.... fix it. I admit, "anybody can edit", but it is much harder to write something than it is to be a critic and assert nothing can be fixed. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As a footnote here, see also WP:COMPANY for notability criteria for companies. This article does have more than one source, including "international" scope of attention including articles in both French and Russian that I've been able to dig up (mostly rehashing other information in article written in English, so they aren't by themselves useful for inclusion into the article). The depth of coverage in the sources is not merely promotion, but actually gets into the meat of what the company does and is notable because of the novelty of the research activity. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Zinc-air battery, keeping the reliable sources there appear to be 3 decent articles on the company, and the grant is real. however, that doesnt mean the company is necessarily notable yet, as it hasnt produced any goods. I would welcome more sources, and more opinions on whether this deserves its own article. This is only my opinion, however well thought out i may think it is. i added a reference myself. I do hope, of course, that others who feel this is not notable will do the proper research. I think the article probably says too much at this time, which makes it a target for deletion as pure promotion (which it isnt). needless to say, no prejudice against recreating as soon as a notable product emerges. I think Cody Friesen may qualify for an article at this time. google scholar has a bit, but im not clear on notability for academics, and i think the standards tend to be a little high and narrow here for inclusion. creating a startup must help with notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps adding content from this research by Dr. Friesen would be in order, and adding some of the references about this company into that article too.... still, I don't understand why it can't stand as a separate article at the moment.
Where I'm really confused here is over the standards for notability for businesses and how that applies in this particular case. I admit that this is a new start-up company and that information about the company is rather sparse at the moment.... which is true for all relatively new start-up companies. As you pointed out, there are several extensive articles explicitly about this company, from independent and reliable sources that seemed to be doing some real journalism and going beyond the basic press release. It at least passes a basic Google test, and is legitimate.
I guess the basic question is if receiving a multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. government qualify for notability, together with bona fide original research at a major university (this article isn't original research, it is about that original research) combined count as sufficient for notability or if perhaps more is needed. I admit that the company is new... in fact on Recovery.gov it lists just six employees and notes that the research really just started in January of this year. I, too, would like to be able to find something else about the company beyond the flurry of articles that were created when the grant was announced.
I just wish there was some compromise between full deletion or sending the content of the article into oblivion with a merger. This article isn't about the battery, but rather about the company. I just don't see a merger really being a legitimate merger and that the sources can really add only a sentence or two to the suggested article.... hardly something that can be called a merger.
As a possible compromise, if this really genuinely doesn't fit notability standards at the moment (I'd like more opinions on that subject.... please!) I'd be willing to move this to a sub-page of my user page as an "article in development" for some time in the future when perhaps some more information about this company becomes a part of the public record and something new happens to the company. I believe that more will happen to this company, and I don't want to go through the effort of having to re-create the article again when that happens. Of course such belief is not grounds for notability and I know that.... which is why I'm offering this sort of compromise at the moment.
BTW, I agree with you that an article on Dr. Friesen would be a good idea, as I've found some additional references to him that go beyond even this company and the research related to this battery concept. I should also note that I have no connection to this company, I don't even live in Arizona, and I'm certainly not trying to make this a promotion piece at all. All I'm trying to do here is to is write an encyclopedia article about something which I find to be novel and interesting. I didn't know that was a crime on this project. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
if you write an article on dr friesen, with refs for his scholarly works, etc. i think it would stand. then the material on this new company would be part of it, until or unless the company makes it big. similar issues with an obscure african scientist (Daniel Annerose) who started a company, should it be the business or the person. in that case i thought it should be the business, but now i think it should be the person (i think its hard to get this right, and i dont want to be to OCD about it). many authors are notable, where their books are worth mentioning without separate articles. I still want to hear from other people.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep 2.5 million of funding, including DARPA, and well sourced in the trade press? Nominating this is nearly as unfathomable as merging an article on a company to an article on a technology (after WP:UNDUE had its way, what would be left?). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 11 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Discography of Giorgos Alkaios (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 new user has created this article without first checking Giorgos Alkaios. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion. The nom was contested by the author and almost immediately, the speedy del tag was removed by another new account. This continues to be the only edit made by that account till date. I strongly suspect that this is a sock-puppet of the same author.
This article should be deleted as there already is a Giorgos Alkaios article with a complete discography in it. A separate article is not required at this time given the size of the main biographical article. 42 09:41, 5 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bates Trophy (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 pre-season friendly tournament involving Southampton FC and one invited opponent. It has no general notability Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:33, 5 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Not entirely sure that this meets CSD:A7, but the article is incomprehensible for it's tech jargon. There are, however, several results returned on a Google search. WackyWace 08:48, 5 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

MXit User Levels (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 subject that fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOT as a user guide. Nuttah (talk) 07:30, 5 June 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 - Non admin close by nominator. Thanks in particular to The Anome - plenty of sources. Springnuts (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Electrical network frequency analysis (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. The sources given are The Register and a non-Peer Reviewed self published paper by the technique's inventor ... hosted by the company who will sell you the software for $1499. There are few google hits, and these normally refer back to the Register article. Springnuts (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've now replaced the original Grigorias cite with one from a peer-reviewed journal, to try to remove any possible concerns about source independence. -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather than being a hoax; it does seem to me that this is a genuine stub on a perfectly valid subject - although it clearly needs a lot of work and fleshing out with information from reliable sources - or perhaps merged as a section on forensic applications in the utility frequency article.
Following through on the clues from the article in The Register (one of the only two sources cited), there is certainly a Dr Alan Cooper who works in the field of digital forensics with the Metropolitan Police in London and who not only submitted a PhD Thesis on the subject of Detection of Copies of Digital Audio Recordings for Forensic Purposes, but was also awarded a PhD for that in August 2006.
Dr Cooper's PhD on the subject is certainly from a credible university and his thesis is linked to from the university's website.
The Royal Holloway also lists Alan Cooper as an MSc graduate in Information Security (2002-2003) and lists him as being in the employ of the Metropolitan Police Service .. as does the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society's reporting on the 33rd AES Conference, in 2008 (J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 56, No. 9, 2008 September) which lists him as part of a specialist panel on How to run an audio forensics laboratory and also very specifically mentions a paper he presented on his work on automatic extraction and matching of Electrical Network Frequency and Authentication (ENF) data (the very subject of the article in question here):
"Alan Cooper of the London Metropolitan Police presented his work on automatic extraction and matching of ENF data ..........."
The J. Audio Eng. Soc. article also mentions papers on ENF presented by two other people.
Google searches would also seem to indicate that there is also seem to be a Dr Catalin Grigoras working with the Romanian Ministry of Justice's National Institute of Forensic Expertise.
There also seems to be plenty of Google hits if you modify the search term slightly:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) navlebeskuelse (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would regard the Reg as a reliable source in this particular context: most of their coverage is serious journalism, albeit mixed in with (generally clearly signalled) joke stories and provocations. This does not seem to be either of the latter. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 5 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

International tax standard (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)

Totally unsourced unencyclopedic essay/guide, fails WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This article is complete BS. The few substantive statements made are mostly incorrect.Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:21, 10 June 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 speedily deleted (A9) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Curry F.O.B. (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)

Supposed upcoming album from a group that doesn't even have an article on here (well, they did, but it was speedily deleted). Violates WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:HOAX, as I can no information for an album of this title being in the making, let alone any of the info listed in the article. (P.S. Both articles appear to have been created by a single-purpose account). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 5 June 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 Logitech. JForget 01:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Logitech MOMO Force steering wheel (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)

Absolutely no notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:02, 5 June 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. The issue of merging can be discussed if and when the 2 suggested merge targets are created. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reign of Terror (demo) (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Even if Death's demos at large were influential in terms of the death metal subgenre, this one isn't. That citation can be in the band's article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Death's three independently released works Reign of Terror, Infernal Death and especially Mutilation were widely distributed internationally as part of the heavy metal tape trading whirlwind of the early/mid-80s. Not only written about in the metal press of that period, it has been referenced in published works on the metal genre. It was also included on the Zero Tolerance album, and is being reissued yet again in the upcoming year by Relapse Records. It would be a shame to obliterate the article and I would hope at the least to Userfy to give more time for the addition of references from the hard copies of period metal mags. Best, A Sniper (talk)
  • Extremely weak keep—while WP:NALBUMS is very clear that unreleased demos are generally non-notable, the page does seem to list a couple of moderately reliable sources. I think we can give this one a little more time. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Additional Suggestion - The last suggestion by Justin is a good one and I'd like to add another possibility. ASniper and others are doing a lot of work on the historical impact of Death's recordings, only to have many of the articles endangered by deletionists. (Who, I might add, have valid arguments but they are not the ONLY arguments.) Note that there is not currently a full Death discography of the type that has been created for many other acts. Currently there is just a list embedded in the band's article. A discography article would be a good place for extra historical information for each release when the separate articles don't survive. See Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Discographies for pointers. I have personally created a few discography articles and it's a fair amount of work, but for Death I think there is enough community interest. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - Personally, I think a discography article for the band would be a welcome addition (it's pretty standard fare for any notable band). The absence of one is a gap in our coverage. Demos with some sourcing (but too little for a stand alone) would fit there. A List of Death Demos is a bit more problematic from my standpoint. While the sources being added here and elsewhere mention specific demos, they don't seem to indicate that Death's demos are, in and of themselves, notable. Death's discography is clearly notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not merge or start a list of Death demo's. That type of list would be trivial at best. A lot of Death demo's exist, but only a few are deemed notable. This one, as was proven before, should be one of them. Enough sources exist, as pointed above, to warrant the existence of this article. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:24, 8 June 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) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mutilation (demo) (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. This one provides a few sources, but they only establish the most tenuous notability--this is more polished than their other (non-notable) demos and it secured them a record contract (which is true of many demos and basically the point of their existence). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Beyond a mere demo, this recording had a life of its own, as it was a heavily traded metal release covered in the metal press of the era, enough to be noted in published books on the subject. In addition, the tracks were released on the Zero Tolerance album, and are being reissued by Relapse Records (distributed by Sony) in the upcoming year, according to their May 2010 press releases. I would go so far as to claim that this isn't really a demo at all, but an independent release put out by the act, receiving enough notoriety to be remembered in publications still in print. At the very least it should be Userfied to give more time to seek out hard copies of the mags of that period. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep—while WP:NALBUMS is very clear that unreleased demos are generally non-notable, the page does seem to list a couple of moderately reliable sources. I think we can give this one a little more time. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All content on this demo has been re-released by notable labels. I see that the Relapse Records re-issue has already been brought up. This album may not have all the sources liked, but it has the amount needed. Also, it's not a good idea to nominate an article for deletion twice in one month. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:59, 8 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashgate Retail Park (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 sources to establish notability, seems to be a very small and failing retail centre. Few (local) sources found are a long way from establishing notability. Rehevkor ✉ 03:36, 5 June 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 on the issue of delete/no-delete. No consensus on the issue of redirecting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cellular life (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)

Can be regarded as a needless category or a trivial content fork --donnyton (talk) 03:21, 5 June 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) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Rock Cafe (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 compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 5 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yusef Abdel Majeed (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 is not inherited through membership of an organisation, let alone alleged membership. There is nothing notable about this person. Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 5 June 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. The issue of merging, redirecting, renaming, or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbolic coordinates (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)

Long standing unreferenced tag and a search did not produce anything to support the material. The term itself seems to be notable but as a coordinate system for hyperbolic space unrelated to the "Quadrant model" mentioned in the article. A search on "Quadrant model"+hyberbolic returned 0 hits. I also found a source that uses the term for coordinates that use hyperbolic functions in the same way that polar coordinates use trigonometric functions. These are unrelated to the material in the article. This has a large number of articles that link to it because it's included in a template for orthogonal coordinate (incorrect since the system in the article is not orthogonal). RDBury (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. The subject is notable, as the proposer admits. The article is well written and well illustrated. The material at Hyperbolic space is more advanced. The linkage between the articles can be improved. I do not see the phrase "Quadrant model" mentioned in the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Improve - yes, delete - no way. The topic constitutes basic math. (we had to learn how to transform to hyperbolic coordinates in university, but you don't have to trust me - 632 hits on Google books are good enough). Some material there might be WP:OR and thus a cleanup would be appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If this is so then please find a reference for the material in the article and add it. There is such a thing as same term being used to mean different things in different places. A raw Google hit count means nothing if all the hits are for something different or does not support the material. If the material was covered in your university then add your textbook as a reference. As of now I have no evidence that the creator of the article didn't make up a new meaning for a term with another meaning.--RDBury (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is canonical. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete Rewrite from scratch This is unsourced and probably original research (mostly written by a rather unreliable editor with a long history of using unorthodox terminology). It should be deleted unless someone can find at least one reliable source for this use of the term. The many hits for hyperbolic coordinates mentioned above all seem to refer to something else. r.e.b. (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
On 2nd thoughts, "hyperbolic coordinate system" is a legitimate title for an article, so can be kept, but the article needs be completely rewritten from scratch as the current version is original research and not what is usually meant by hyperbolic coordinate system. r.e.b. (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to hyperbolic space - There doesn't seem to be much material in this article that isn't already better-described elsewhere. The material not duplicated elsewhere reads like an essay on why the article's editor thinks the coordinate system is handy. Have one of the WP:WPMATH or WP:PHYS editors fold any useful content in and redirect. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The term "hyperbolic coordinates" often refers to geodesic normal coordinates in a hyperbolic space. However, it is also often used in an unrelated way in applied mathematics to refer to coordinate systems like the one described in the article. For instance, the Encyclopedic dictionary of mathematics refers to x = u v {\displaystyle x=uv} , y = ( u 2 − v 2 ) / 2 {\displaystyle y=(u^{2}-v^{2})/2} as a hyperbolic coordinate system. Related coordinate systems introduce hyperbolic functions to parameterize the hyperbolic angle, are closer to the coordinate system defined in the article: see, for instance, . So there are two genera of hyperbolic coordinate systems: those coming from hyperbolic geometry, and those coming from applied mathematics. The article is about hyperbolic coordinates in the latter sense, and a hatnote should be added to indicate the other meaning. Ultimately, if the article is kept, it will need to be completely rewritten from sources to indicate that, even in the second meaning of the term, there are various closely related coordinate systems that are called "hyperbolic", depending on the source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Parabolic coordinates covers the system described as hyperbolic coordinates in the EDoM. It makes more sense to call them parabolic since the coordinate curves are parabolas. It might makes sense to talk about coordinates defined by the inverse relation u = x y {\displaystyle u=xy} , v = ( x 2 − y 2 ) / 2 {\displaystyle v=(x^{2}-y^{2})/2} as hyperbolic coordinates but I didn't see this in any of my research.--RDBury (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, in EDoM "parabolic coordinates" refer to the inverse coordinate system. This only further demonstrates my point: even in my latter sense, the terminology is not canonical but clearly refer to a collection of very closely related coordinate systems. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but throw away the OR. Merging into hyperbolic space makes little sense: it's just a coordinate system, so unless you define a metric it doesn't tell you which kind of space it is. "Coordinates that use hyperbolic functions in the same way that polar coordinates use trigonometric functions" are the same as those described here, except for a 45°-rotation and a √2-scaling. (Just set x′ = x cos(45°) + y sin(45°), y′ = −x sin(45°) + y cos(45°) and substitute the expression for x and y given at the end of the lead to see it.) A. di M. (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
There are no references in the article so how can it be determined what is not OR? If there was anything in the article that I could substantiate then I wouldn't have done the AfD. Also, the coordinate curves for the coordinates defined similarly to polar coordinates are hyperbolas instead of circles, so they are not rotationally equivalent.--RDBury (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You didn't get the point: in order to define coordinates such that x = a coshφ, y = a sinhφ, you have to pick an x- and a y-axis first, and if you pick axes which are rotated by 45° w.r.t. mine, you get the same coordinate system I would get if I used the formulas in the article. (Essentially, you use x and y to refer to the axes of the hyperbolas and I use them to refer to their asymptotes.) A. di M. (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I misinterpreted what you were saying the first time but I see what you were getting at now. But we still need a reference for the coordinates as given in the article. I'll try to find where I saw the system I described earlier; maybe it can be used as the basis for a rewrite.--RDBury (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's here.--RDBury (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If it were edited so to use the x = a coshφ, y = a sinhφ definition (or whatever name for a and φ), would you still object to the existence of the article? A. di M. (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
My objective is to remove unreferenced material, so if the article is rewritten based on a reliable source it's fine with me.--RDBury (talk) 04:53, 8 June 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. It seems merging as suggested would be the sensible solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleasuredrome (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)

Mentions in travel guides and lifestyle magazines are not proof of notability (compare restaurants and bars). William Avery (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Other two articles:

(Rovington (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

  • Merge

Pleasuredrome article has sufficient citations and in equal number to the other two articles. These articles could all be merged into one.

(Rovington (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Merge templates have been addded to the three articles, with a view to merging all three into one article with a new title on the subject matter of Gay & Bi Saunas in UK, this should also eliminate any advertising elements within these articles --Rovington (talk) 15:46, 5 June 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 prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found. Perhaps somebody fluent in Danish could help. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Crash (1984 TV series) (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)

Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

To meet that criteria, "it should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced", which this article certainly doesn't. Claritas § 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"notable for something more" could you give me 4-5 examples of what that "something" could be? --Bensin (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
For example, it could have received multiple reviews in national newspapers, or a book could have been published on it, or it could have been expanded into a feature length film, or it could mark a significant moment in the history of TV - such as The Marriage (first regular color broadcast). Claritas § 18:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you may be interpreting the guideline too literally. Because it is just a guideline and it is, as it says, "best treated with common sense". I believe a nationwide broadcast in three countries establishes this series notability. But I totally agree with you that it needs references to books and newspapers. A deletion may not be the best way to achieve that though. --Bensin (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at the interwiki articles - they suffer from the same problem as the English one - no references. There's simply no coverage of this television series around. Claritas § 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Few references are not none, and little coverage is not none. But yes, broken links are a menace. I repaired the link to the series hosted at Danish Broadcasting Corporation. Does anyone have serious doubts that the series exists at all? --Bensin (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it exists, but the coverage of it in reliable sources isn't significant enough for there to be an article on it. 15:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
IMDb is reliable enough. Together with Danish Broadcasting Corporation as a source ("Denmark's oldest and largest electronic media enterprise") there are enough sources to establish notability, which I believe was the main argument for deletion. --Bensin (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
IMDb is NOT a reliable source. The Danish source doesn't say anything about notability - it just has some clips. Claritas § 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
... that's why I wrote "reliable enough". But if the main issue is notability, do we agree that the series is notable if it was broadcast nationwide in a country? --Bensin (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No, because there's no "inherent notability" for series simply because they are broadcast nationwide. Claritas § 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I suppose we simply have to disagree. In my opinion, a 13-episode TV-series broadcast nationwide in three countries by the largest broadcasters can hardly fail to be notable. Good thing a guideline is a guideline... --Bensin (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as there are short lived english language television series with articles, this one is just handicapped by being Danish in an English project. As for a small amount of notibility, it features Danish award winning actor Peter Steen, who won best supporting actor at the Bodil Awards and the Robert Awards in 2004. The latter is the Danish equivalent of the Oscars. I'm sure that in time, with the attention of a Danish speaking contributor, it could rise to the level of Line of Fire. Movementarian (Talk) 06:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark for improvement. I see sufficient foreign language references to the show via google that I am sure more reliable sources exist to be added.--Milowent (talk) 11:46, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Environment for DeveLoping KDD-Applications Supported by Index-Structures (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 meet WP:Notability. Contested PROD, tagged for {{notability}} since 2 May with no addition of references to indicate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Searching Google Scholar, Books and News finds none either. Current references are all written by the developers. Qwfp (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The current references are all in established, highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific publications, not self-published or pay-for-publish. Quoting WP:RELIABLE:

Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

has SSDBM and DASFAA in the Rank 2 group for Databases. SSTD/SSD is a specialized conference for time series and spatial databases, only every other year, but also peer-reviewed and highly regarded in the research community.

The software has been used for visualization in R-Tree, Local Outlier Factor, de:OPTICS (OPTICS algorithm) and I intend to use it for visualization of DBSCAN.

  • Keep, but I am the primary author of the article, and a contributor to the software --Chire (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - sources given do not establish notability of the software, merely its existence and features.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - First of all the article should be named ELKI as an acronym to the very long name currently used. Sources are from established conferences and they could establish notability but NOT neutral point of view (they are publications from the team that created the software). Since the article's author has a vested interest in the software there are additional problems with neutrality. I would suggest the authors to try to find additional resources and references from other authors to help establish the above point and get other wikipedia editors to improve the neutrality of the article. And please change the article's name... Pxtreme75 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tried to keep the article as neutral and factual as possible. If you find anything non-neutral, you are welcome to help improving it. As for the name: it may be ugly, but at least its collision-free. And it is the full official name, capitalization included. I did not want to introduce the article as ELKI because it might at some point be needed to have a disambuigation page then, and "grabbing" short names would be "non-neutral" in my opinion. Following WEKA to Weka (machine learning), it might however be okay to use ELKI (data mining)? --Chire (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neutrality is achieved from proper use of different types of sources. My problem is not with the tone of the article but the absence of multiple points of view (check Verifiability). Are there articles from other authors that use ELKI? Any non-biased reviews on established web or printed mediums? On the other topic ELKI (data mining) seems a reasonable choice. Pxtreme75 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is independently acknowledged here, but at that time (0.1) deemed not as well-suited as WEKA for their requirements (no visualization yet at that time). There is this master thesis indepently done in Greece using ELKI source code (but it's just a masters thesis, so forget it as reference). There is an upcoming publication to be presented next week at DaMoN2010 that used ELKI for experiments with spatial indexing on solid-state disks using the R*-tree implementation of ELKI, however that one is not entiely independent (colleagues of the ELKI authors). There is , a joint work with the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Candada, that only includes one of the ELKI contributors, but thus it's also not independent. There is this citation analysis on databases that asserts the database research group to be the 10 most cited worldwide (but there is no page on the database group that the article could be merged into). There is an upcoming workshop at the ACM KDD2010 conference in the MultiClust track that will likely involve ELKI (given that two of the contributors are involved). But seriously, I don't have the impression any of this will satisfy your requests for independent evaluation (although all cited references are peer-reviewed, usually by 3-4 domain experts) despite WP:OBSCURE. I doubt you'll ever see this software reviewed in a traditional print magazin or web software review site, given that it's research software and not point-and-shoot data mining software (if such things even can exist). Deletionism on Knowledge (XXG) is driving me nuts. --Chire (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional reference: ACM SIGKDD 2009 Dissertation Award Runner-Up for correlation clustering. The two-page summary can be found on kdd.org. Quoting: "The implementations of all algorithms are available in the framework ELKI " (the recipient of the award is one of the main authors of ELKI. The two references are the ELKI 0.1 and 0.2 releases). So when the #1 data mining conference gave a dissertation award to it, does this finally establish enough WP:NOTABILITY for an WP:OBSCURE software page? (and can we then get back to working on content again?) --Chire (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. First of all I don't believe in either deletionism or inclusionism. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. I do believe though that all these rules can turn against the truth. So, I prefer to judge things case by case. The WP:OBSCURE nature of the software consists no problem for its inclusion. Also, personally I am not sure if it merits an article or not. That is why i have not voted - I just offered some comments and suggestions. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 5 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Open source CRM software (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)

Since its creation, this page doesn't seem to have improved itself. It's still unsourced, but has grown to include quite a few redlink (and likely non-notable) pages. —fetch·comms 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename to List of Open source CRM software to reflect the article's actual content. This isn't an article about open source CRM. It's a list of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's a list but most of the entries are not notable, thus it's an unnecessary list article. Just went through and prodded most of them for lack of notability and independent sources (and speedied one which had been deleted via discussion and recreated with no improvement).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 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, 5 June 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) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An Endless Sporadic (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)

Band with no sourced indication of notability in reliable sources outside of having a couple of songs included in video games; the only sources cited here are band webpages, discussion forums and last.fm (none of which even satisfy WP:GNG, let alone WP:NMUSIC). Four different versions of this article have failed AFD in the past (see table, as well as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Endless Sporadic, An). I'm not really seeing that this version makes a more compelling case for notability — it's actually a poorer article than the second version, though it's marginally better than the first version — but I don't feel comfortable speedying it without a consensus since the content isn't identical enough to the prior versions to call it a straight repost of deleted material, and clearly somebody is really determined to get this topic into Knowledge (XXG) no matter what it takes. That said, I wouldn't necessarily object if someone else did feel it speedyable. This title, in fact, was salted in the past to prevent recreation; the most recent version was created at An endless sporadic (band), but I moved it to the orthographically correct title before learning of the history here. Delete if we don't see serious improvement by close; I'd also propose that if this does close as a delete, we blacklist the phrase "Endless Sporadic" since just salting the title clearly isn't enough. (The hope of establishing a consensus for that is one more reason why I chose to take this to AFD instead of shooting on sight.) Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article has since been edited to include independent and reliable sources (Knowledge (XXG) being one). Also, the band has released two separate albums which at least in spirit meets WPMUSIC criteria 5. To require that the released albums be on a major label seems an arcane requirement in the digital age, but not getting into that debate here. Only noting that given the two albums are available on iTunes would seem to, in effect if not in letter, also satisfy the spirit of this additional criteria.
Blacklist seems entirely inappropriate. The first deletion was speedy, and frankly shouldn't have been, given prima fascia satisfaction of criteria 10. The second was before they released their independent albums. And in 2010 they plan a tour which would invariable allow meeting criteria 4. That articles keep getting posted would attest to a certain degree of notability that seems to itself speak against a blacklist, not a wanton disregard for Wiki admin deletions.Mpoloukhine (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that Roine Stolt and Jonas Reingold of The Flower Kings (noted and sourced in the article) can be considered members of the band, and as such would satisfy criteria 6. Reingold is without question a "member" having performed on all album tracks, and while Stolt's production contribution can be debated as making him a "member" clearly the deep involvement of these two notable musicians would come darn close to if not de facto satisfying criteria 6. That makes two criteria met, or nearly met in addition to crit. 10. Surely this is enough to establish sufficient (if not significant) notability to stem deletion?Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're still missing the facts that WP:MUSIC (a) says that a band may be notable if it meets those criteria, not that it unequivocally is notable, and (b) explicitly states that In order to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. Primary sources like the band's own website can be used as supplementary sources once notability is established in reliable secondary sources, but they don't demonstrate notability in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
See below. Criteria 10 is met three times, and to meet that criteria sourcing Knowledge (XXG) articles is sufficient. The remaining sourcing to establish satisfactory notability to allow a full article per Criteria 10 rather than the redirect allowed by meeting criteria 10 is sufficiently reliably sourced (The Flower Kings, iTunes) Criteria 10 having been met and reliably sourced, the debate should no longer be about deletion, but whether it should be a mere redirect or an article. I don't write the rules, I'm just pointing out that they should be adhered to in this case. Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please actually read WP:RS at some point. Sources need to be independent, reliable media, such as newspapers, radio programs or music magazines, which can be consulted at a later date if somebody needs to verify or review the information. Not iTunes, not a band's own website, not the website of another band that the first band are friends with, not a YouTube rip of somebody playing the video game, and not another Knowledge (XXG) article — real media, and only real media. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that you please refrain from the tone of condescension, it is neither warranted, necessary or constructive to this debate. See my comment below. If you have a problem with the sourcing of the band's contributions to the video games, you need to take it up at those articles, a re-direct would not require additional sourcing. I refer you to the logic of my point under the redirect vs. full article heading below.Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that you please refrain from accusing people of condescension who've done nothing of the sort whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestion I read WP:RS as if I haven't was completely uncalled for, and condescending; I have read it, and you have no place to suggest I haven't. I ask again that you please refrain from making this debate personal.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly warrants notability?

I do not quite understand what qualifies as something as notable. It seems completely absurd that it must qualify some arbitrary guideline when the band is clearly known to the degree that it's been made four times. The songs are present in a highly successful video game series. After writing this I'll read your shortcuts to see why exactly they don't qualify. I was unaware of the previous three iterations of this article, and just recently came to understand salting, but I will not let some guideline prevent an article from being made. I will bring this article to standards. If you're so upset about it being non-notable and frustrated at the poor quality, then edit them yourselves! I don't listen to the band or own their CDs, but I care enough to try to edit their article! Annihilan 11:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability = the existence (and presence in the article) of reliable, independent sources about the band, which demonstrate that they've had press or media coverage by which we can verify the accuracy of the information contained in the article. Citing the band's own webpage, last.fm, or web discussion forums doesn't cut it — notability would be demonstrated by citing reputable music magazines, newspapers, and the like. Notability is not about checking off a list of accomplishments — it's about "there has been real coverage of this band in real media", and this article, in all of its various iterations, has yet to show a shred of evidence that the band has ever garnered so much as three words of coverage in a real source. Maybe they have, I don't know — but the onus is on the article's creator to demonstrate that, not on anybody else to grant them the benefit of the doubt or to do their job for them. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
(I have condensed all my yesterday's comments for clarity) Articles should be edited by their authors or interested parties, Bearcat, I'm with you on that. As to the definition of notability, the above you provide is a subjective one, not that of WPMUSIC. WPMUSIC is far more specific and clear. WPMUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria..." and Criteria 10 reads "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)"
The band has met this criteria on three separate, noted and sourced notable works of media. If it were simply one, then a redirect article would probably be worth considering, but the band has performed music for at least three. Can't redirect anymore, and according to WPMUSIC, the only definition of notability which should apply here, the band has achieved sufficient, if minimal notability.Mpoloukhine (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the facts that WP:MUSIC (a) says that a band may be notable if it meets those criteria, not that it unequivocally is notable, and (b) explicitly states that In order to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. In other words, no matter how much notability is asserted in the article, it still has to be verifiable in reliable sources that are present in the article. And that doesn't mean that posting one link to a webvideo site where somebody posted a screenrip of the video game solves the problem, either — it means referencing the article to newspaper or music magazine coverage about the band. Even the loftiest, grandest notability claim on earth still does not count toward notability or keepability if it isn't sourced. If you're willing and able to put in the time to source the article up properly, then great, by all means, go for it and make the article keepable. But the article isn't entitled to stick around in its current form, just because it asserts notability under three criteria listed on WP:MUSIC, if the accuracy of those assertions isn't referenced (or referenceable) to reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Respectuflly, you are incorrect about sourcing as it pertains to Criteria 10. Reference to the Knowledge (XXG) for the notable media work to which the band has contributed music is sufficient to meet the criteria 10 requirements. As to the sourcing of the remaining information to establish an article status rather than a redirect on the other hand, I agree with you, and I believe such sourcing is sufficiently reliable (The Flower Kings, iTunes, and I can easily add others if necessary.)Mpoloukhine (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please actually read WP:RS at some point. Sources need to be independent, reliable media, such as newspapers, radio programs or music magazines, which can be consulted at a later date if somebody needs to verify or review the information. Not iTunes, not a band's own website, not the website of another band that the first band are friends with, and not another Knowledge (XXG) article. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see my point below regarding Criteria 10 and redirect vs. full article as you are clearly missing my point regarding sourcing as it pertains to that criteria, about which you are mistaken. If you question the sourcing of the band's contribution to those games, you should be arguing to have it better sourced at those game articles. And I would ask that you please refrain from the tone of condescension, it is neither warranted, necessary or constructive to this debate. Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have updated sources for two of the three video game tracks originally listed and added a fourth video game track. The sources are I believe now reliable, coming directly from their respective Knowledge (XXG) articles, and from third party established outlets.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have also added what I believe is reliably sourced advertisement of the band's scheduled first public performance. Again... not to suggest that meets Criteria 4 but to establish notable accomplishment in addition to having met Criteria 10, now on three verifiably sourced instances so that the band "may" be considered notable in light of only having met Criteria 10.Mpoloukhine (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.155.96 (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 10 satisfaction precludes deletion. Redirect v. Full article.

Seems I need to isolate out my main point on disagreeing with the deletion call and subject it to debate on its own. I believe it is clear that the band has met Criteria 10 by virtue of nothing more than sourcing Knowledge (XXG) entries for the three video games ("notable works of media") to which the band has contributed music. The remaining debatable topic is whether the band deserves more than the re-direct it has earned by meeting Criteria 10, but having met Criteria 10 the outright deletion is not warranted. Salting and Blacklisting are also clearly not warranted and contrary to Wiki standards.

  • Comment It appears you have very little clue about what makes an article notable by Knowledge (XXG)'s objective standards, not simply your own subjective ones that are obviously motivating you (or others) to continually try to list this article when concensus has been that the subject is not notable, or at least doesn't appear to be notable to a majority of editors looking into it for review. You appear to be a little too close to this "band" and you may want to step back and let Knowledge (XXG) work the way it was intended. This article should be blacklisted, at least in the sense it keeps getting created and then Wiki editors have to hem and haw to get it back off the Main Page when clearly it is not a notable subject by anyone's standards but your own. You may be able to get an article on a music website, but Wiki does not appear to be the place to continue your attempts to have the article included. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The debate about sources and their reliability Bearcat and others have is entirely valid and pertinent, but only toward establishing whether there is sufficient additional notability to warrant a full article over an earned redirect status. I find no requirement in WP:MUSIC that fully meeting additional criteria is necessary for an article status once criteria 10 has been met, only that the entry "may" require it to achieve such status, and no direct indication how this "may" be done, leaving it up to debate.

I have noted two additional criteria that seem to have been met at least in spirit, if not letter, and those achievements are, I believe reliably sourced and sufficiently notable. In combination with the fact that the band has satisfied Criteria 10 not just once but on at least three separate instances seems to me to be more than sufficient to warrant an article. Mpoloukhine (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 6 satisfied

I have added sourcing to confirm Stolt & Reingold were referred to as "band members" for the band's LP, which would I believe achieve notability under WP:MUSIC Criteria 6. That would be two criteria now met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpoloukhine (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete again. nothing much has really changed since last time. a band may be notable if it's been on notable games but given the extreme lack of coverage in independent reliable sources this is not one of them. the amount of times this has been recreated despite no real changes justifies salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability is not inherited. There appears to be no significant coverage by independent reliable sources, thus it fails WP:MUSIC.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Keep - WP:MUSIC Criteria 10 allows redirect to be earned without additional sourcing. A triple re-direct is not possible, implying satisfaction of Criteria 10 is in this case sufficient notability per WP:MUSIC for a Keep. Salting or Blacklisting suppresses information not contested elsewhere in Knowledge (XXG) and is unjustified given redirect is possible.Mpoloukhine (talk) 04:39, 2 June 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, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Critical examination of the claims and sources shows that this one easily fails WP:MUSIC (again). No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Given the recreation under a different name to avoid salt, the nom makes a persuasive argument for blacklist. Location (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing of apparent note. I've been making and releasing music online since 1999, but I don't have a Knowledge (XXG) article because of it. Also, I have to second the blacklist nom as three, four, five times...how many times does the article have to be deleted before the author begins to understand the subject does NOT meet notability requirements, personal arguments aside. Note to Mpoloukhine: there is nothing personal in any of this, simply editors attempting to help you understand how Knowledge (XXG) works. This is not subjective, rather a concensus building approach to verifying references and notability. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
  • Delete Pretty obvious case of use of WP by an article subject as a selling tool. Notability doctrine be damned, flacking should be squelched. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Eduvo (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 5 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

GNUFI (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can find no signficant coverage for this software. I'm not surprised since according to the article, the software was never officially released, and it is no longer under development. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 31 May 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, 5 June 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) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Self-promotion by local religious sect. No reliable source. Not notable. There is also a redirect at Ritro Gonpo. Fred Talk 19:03, 29 May 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, 5 June 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Stricklan (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 seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Google turns up only trivial mentions of him. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 5 June 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 Carol Queen. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Absexual (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 about a neologism which fails WP:NEO. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. Claritas § 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Being asexual myself, I would find the redirect almost offensive - it's linking an essentially derogatory term for social/sexual conservatives to a neutral term for those who lack a sexual orientation. Either delete or keep, but that redirect would be entirely inappropriate. Claritas § 12:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What policy says you're supposed to not delete articles if you want a redirect there? That sounds really bizarre. Feel free to add a redirect after the deletion if the search box that comes up isn't adequate though. - BigBodBad (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No policy says so nowadays, but contributions from February 2009 weren't licenced the way they are today. They were licenced purely under the GFDL, and at that time it was viewed as counter to the GFDL to delete the material when redirecting. Deleting something before redirecting it is possible nowadays, but when deleting contributions that were made under the pure GFDL, I think there really ought to be a good reason (such as a copyvio or BLP problem in the pre-existing article). Generally, when volunteers contribute, the licence they were contributing under really ought to be taken into account.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the citations already given, try doing a Google Scholar and Google Books search a shot. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as an alternative, merger into Carol Queen, with redirection to that article, is an acceptable alternative if consensus is to not keep the Absexual article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there's no generally accepted term 'absexual' nor is there any underlying generally acknowledged thing. Encyclopedia articles are about generally agreed things, not terms that some author just made up to sell a book. This is just a neologism that doesn't seem to have entered general usage, and we don't do them. - BigBodBad (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Carol Queen. Fails WP:NEO. SnottyWong talk 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - or merge whatever is well cited and of value to another article, not individually of note. Off2riorob (talk)
  • Keep Not only is it cited in RSs, it is referred to by them as being in wide use. I fail to understand the basis of the two delete comments, given the sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Yes it's mentioned in few sources, but many times the term is used in quotations and is followed by a definition or some indication that it was invented by Carol Queen. These sources aren't exactly about the term either. On the other hand there seems to be enough source material to write a decent article. P. D. Cook 02:12, 13 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cemre Erol (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)

Declining speedy A7, as my notability detector is wonky. Elevating for better discernment. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 29 May 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, 5 June 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. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AFD had a keep consensus for references simply saying it was going to come out. The book has now been released and there is no significant coverage at all. –Chase (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep - see below. –Chase (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

*Speedy Merge to Lady Gaga, section: Further Reading. Doesnot deserve own article space. --Legolas 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Per the good work of Cirt, I change my two cents to Keep. --Legolas 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 June 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) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OVH (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 non-notable company. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 5 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the subject. It was created by a person in my group, using my computer. Please delete this item.

James L. Ritchie-Dunham (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 and sources issues. Article appears to be resume originally posted by article's subject in 2006. Minor edits since then. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that he meets WP:ACADEMIC or that the lack of "associate" implies that he was a full professor. According to Professor (if we are to trust Knowledge (XXG) as a source!): "In Spanish-speaking Latin America, the term professor (profesor) is used for any one who teaches at a school, institute, technical school, vocational school, college, or university, regardless of the level of the subject matter taught or the level or ages of the students." (It appears that Institute for Strategic Clarity was initially created by the subject, too.) Location (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per subject's request and because he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. He is president of the non-notable Institute for Strategic Clarity. His connection with Harvard appears tenuous; he is not listed on the Harvard Psychology Department's faculty page , but he could be an outside lecturer like a clinical professor. Google Scholar reveals some publications and some citations for them, giving him some weak notability; certainly not enough to insist on keeping the article over the subject's objections. (NOTE: the subject put his request for deletion at the top of the page, but it was actually added after Claritas and Location made their comments.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 11 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy (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)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only one part of the "trilogy" has been released, and it hasn't completed yet. The first part already has its own article, so this is essentially dependent on two series that haven't come out yet. Friginator (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But why wait. The second series has been confirmed. Don't you think its just a little bit silly, making 3 articles and then when the issue has been released of the Trilogy then making it in to one. Ultimate Galactus Trilogy is one article. Im just thinking wht you are doing is making the Ultimate Marvel pages messier buy having seperate articles. It is a trilogy, it has been confirmed over and over again. JFBeard (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - this is being described as similar to the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy which started out as three articles and they were all pretty poor so it was merged into one. Given how poor Ultimate Comics: Enemy and how Ultimate Comics: Mystery is shaping up, I think the best course of action would be to trim the plot down and merge them all into this one article covering all three limited series. We could end up with one fairly decent article as opposed to three poor ones. If one of the parts of this trilogy somehow takes off and does something notable (notable enough that requires a lot more room), then we could look into splitting it but at the moment a merge seems the best option. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
Except it wasn't called the "Ultimate Galactus" trilogy until much later. I seriously doubt this will be collected as the "Ultimate Enemy" trilogy, so for now we don't even have a conclusive name. Friginator (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer's Law can apply in these circumstances - so if, for example, the first single off an album was failing notability it'd make sense to merge it to the album article, which is easier to prove notability for, even if the final title isn't yet known (as long as you can prove notability). The Ultimate Enemy is poor and given the precedent of what happened with the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy article it'd make sense to cover all three series in the one article. I do think the article under discussion has slightly "jumped the gun" but now we have it we might as well use it. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 23 May 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) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Instructure (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-neutral article on a non-notable software product, referenced only with a link to the author's own blog (the other "references" are a link within Knowledge (XXG) and to the homepages of similar companies given as examples) and zero sources found. Once speedy deleted and then recreated by the same author; retagged for speedy deletion but this time declined. Speedy Delete as spam or non-notable. I42 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the non-neutral claim. The content provided is unbiased and informative, and offers references for all statements. The external links provided are to multiple third-party sources, including a business write-up and evaluations by two notable individuals in the field of educational technology. Individuals in this field use blogs as a primary means of publication and should not be discounted so lightly. There are no longer any links to the home pages of other companies, but instead evaluations of those products third parties. These are the same types of (or better) references provided on pages such as Brizzly, Present.ly or Mixero. The previous speedy delete only occurred because I wasn't fast enough to add in a hangon tag, and shouldn't be considered in this discussion. As stated on the talk page, I am happy to modify any content if it appears to be unbiased in nature. My goal is to flesh out the list of Next-Generation Learning Management Systems mentioned on Knowledge (XXG) to include those products that are beginning to gain traction. I chose to start with Instructure because, as a co-founder, I see little point in continuing on to the other products mentioned if I can't even get my own page to stick. Again, the content on the actual page is pretty concise, and is my first attempt at fleshing out to learning management system category on Knowledge (XXG).Brian.whitmer (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Added mentions of specific schools involved in the development process, along with non-self-published information source. Requested help from additional parties in removing biased POV from article as well and modifications have been made. Brian.whitmer (talk) 06:33, 25 May 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) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since nomination for deletion, page has been modified by a third party in attempt to remove biased POV, additional references added, non-self-published reference link added. Content on this page is now similar in tone and content to the Meridian_KSI page (which only has company-site references), for example. Please advise if additional changes need to be made.Brian.whitmer (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which, ironically, has been speedily deleted - as this article should be. I42 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'm afraid a university newspaper does not count as significant coverage and is not the most reliable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Maybe I missed it, but I don't see comments on university papers being unreliable on the page you referenced. Brian.whitmer (talk) 19:20, 8 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Super Dimension (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 is nothing but a pseudo-category page that categorizes three other completely unrelated articles!!! Even if such pages needed categorizing, a category page in Category namespace would have sufficed. Speedy-delete or transfer to Category namespace. Fleet Command (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Comment what do you mean completely unrelated? It's about a branding by the producers to promote their product. Sure you could say that a Chevrolet Geo is completely unrelated to a Corvette, but they have the same branding, so an article on Chevy would be reasonable. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment there's something wrong with the list of previous AfDs. "Super Dimension Fortress" is a different article, with different topic matter. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep They reuse the same theme probably recycle some characters, retelling the story again. Gundam and others do the same thing in their universes. This way people can link to which of the three notable series they are looking for, and know the series was redone three times already, and see what else is there. Dream Focus 09:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Excuse me, Dream Focus, but have you ever heard of notability? The subject of similarity of the names between these three UNRELATED titles' fails to meet Knowledge (XXG) Notability guideline, that is, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not merit a standalone article. That's just one of the many policies that this article violates. Essentially, this article sail very close to Criteria A3 for Speedy Deletion. By all means, go ahead and put the matter on other articles, but this so-called "Article" thing is not even category, let alone article!

      Now, dear Dream Focus, I'm really starting to think whether what you mean was irony!

      Fleet Command (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
      • It links to other pages, this a valid search term. People search for Super Dimension, there are three pages they could be looking for, so a disambiguation page is fine. Dream Focus 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
        • So, you mean we turn it into a disambiguation page? Hmmm! A good idea. We remove the paragraphs at the bottom and leave the links. Then, we put a disambig template. If we have a consensus on that, then let's just wait for the AfD closure and then commence. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm, the English article is a mess. The Japanese article is a bit more detailed; it seems like the three series were advertised by the production company as part of the same franchise, despite the lack of plot overlap. Not all that unusual a concept, but certainly more common in Japanese television than here. I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to create a franchise article that meets notability requirements, but it might be worth investigating. Doceirias (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... An interesting note. However, such a note is not so notable that merit its own article, now is it? You can consider putting this note in other articles... with proper citations, of course. Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Obviously, any franchise page would need to be sourced properly. That goes without saying. I'm merely suggesting there may be more grounds/need for one than the English version of the page suggests; anything further would need an interested editor to get involved and do some digging. Doceirias (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
        • That more easily said than done. This article has been up for four years, since 2006. It had so much time for development. It hasn't developed. Hence, it is not potentially notable. If you feel otherwise, you are more than welcome to prove it. Fleet Command (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Failure to develop a stub does not imply lack of notability. I'm not voting keep here; from what's in the article now, taking it to AfD was perfectly fair. At the same time, there is precedence for franchise pages like this if one can be developed; this AfD will be read by editors who might want to edit it, so I pointed out that there was more information on the Japanese page in case there was something to be made of it. Not sure why you're arguing with me about that. Doceirias (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Knowledge (XXG) is not a voting booth! And Afd is not about voting either; it is about improving the quality of an encyclopedia that is meant to remain forever. This heap of text that call itself an article had four years to develop. It did not and it won't over the next 4 years. If you wish, userify this page (or move it to incubator) and work on it to make it a good stub, a disambiguation page or a good category page. I think it is self-evident here that this article in this condition does not merit existence. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Try reading what I said instead of screaming at me. I specifically SAID I wasn't voting! (And I didn't mean voting in the sense you imply anyway, merely the word in bold people use when stating a position.) I don't edit articles much these days; I monitor anime AfD because I speak Japanese and can occasionally provide additional information that is available on the Japanese Knowledge (XXG), and that more active editors can use to decide for themselves if there is a way to make an article into something worthwhile. I have seen far worse articles become good ones after someone sent them to AfD. Stop trying to turn this into an argument, assume good faith, and wait until consensus arises. Doceirias (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                • I didn't scream. (Why should I?) And I perfectly assumed good faith. (Why should I not?) If you feel this article may improve, you can userify it or move it to incubator. Do you feel such, Doceirias? If so, we can drop the AfD right away. Fleet Command (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
                  • I'm not going to work on the article, as I said above. I'm simply providing information here. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to argue with me about the information I'm providing; I apologize if I've misunderstood your intention, but you've clearly misunderstood mine, or you would never have responded to me at all. I genuinely don't understand why we're having this conversation, but I would suggest that, in future, you trust your initial statement and allow AfDs to take their course. Responding to every comment made -- even if you're just trying to clarify your intent -- just makes it look like you're trying to own the discussion, or something. In the meantime, opinions from other experienced editors would be welcome. Doceirias (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Google news shows results, and it not hard to find reliable news sources that mention that Robotech was released as a merger of these unrelated series. The information is all verifiable, and gets ample coverage everywhere. Dream Focus 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, this article is neither about Robotech nor the splicing of the series. So, I'm afraid what Google News shows is of very little significance here. Besides, you are now advocating conversion of this "article" into a disambiguation page, aren't you? Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 5 June 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. JForget 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Earth (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 future pageant. I42 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following sub-pages:

Mister Earth 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 5 June 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. (non-admin closure) --moreno oso (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The result was no consensus. The argument that the book is not notable due to a lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources is balanced by the argument that the book is notable due to being written by a notable author - even if that notable author is a group pseudonym. Fences&Windows 14:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Runaway Bride (Nancy Drew) (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 proposed deletion - does not meet WP:NB or WP:N - not enough significant coverage, and I don't consider the notability inherited from Carolyn Keene. Claritas (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Carolyn Keene would probably turn over in her grave at the "Pen Name Cemetery" for this one, which is about part of a series of games. Wow, Template:Nancy Drew has to be seen to be believed -- all the titles in there are computer games, as if that was the only part of the franchise. A sign of our changing times, I guess, but in the 20th century, millions of girls and a lesser number of boys would read Nancy Drew books, those things that were made of paper and had lots of words. Mandsford 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable to this discussion. This book was first published by Simon Pulse (Simon & Schuster) in 1994 and has been remained in print since then. In 2001, this popular novel was re-published and distributed by Simon & Schuster Children's Books as a Nancy Drew "2-in-1" along with the also popular Case #66: Tall, Dark and Deadly. Inniverse (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is indeed not applicable, but there's no indication that this work meets notability guidelines. Claritas (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Just one of a long line of chain books, without any individual notability as demonstrable by significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether or not it is in print nor claimed but unproven "popularity" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Google book search shows its mentioned in other publications. I look through the template and don't see how this is different than dozens of other articles for books in this series. Destroy one, then go ahead and nominate the rest? What would be gained by that? Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, there plenty of room for this. These books all sell quite well, which is why they have been published continuously for 80 years now. Dream Focus 02:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Dream, that's an all or nothing fallacy. I think we should judge each article on each Nacy Drew book against the relevant guideline (WP:NB), and if the article fails it, it should be deleted. The mentions of the book you've found are completely trivial - there's no significant coverage. Claritas (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Keep according to our usual rules, all the individual books in this series are notable; whether we ought to have an article on each is another matter--we need to separate notability for the purpose of detailed encyclopedic content coverage from notability for the purpose of being appropriate for having a separate article--but at present the only distinction is whether someone wants to write the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BK #5, notability of the author. Admittedly it is a unusual case, as Carolyn Keene is a pseudonym for several authors who have penned this series over the last century, but we have a similar case with Franklin W. Dixon. Both are long-running and quite well-renowned series, where IMO the individual novels derive notability from the whole. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 5 June 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 Bones_(season_2)#Episodes. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mother and Child in the Bay (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. Non-notable television episode - per WP:TVEP. No significant coverage, and no claim of notability. Claritas (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Bones (season 2) as per the usual method of dealing with unnotable episodes. No demonstrable notability per WP:N, article nothing but a summary already available in the list. Existence doesn't make it notable nor does its being in "syndication" or on DVD. Notability of the series does not confer to the individual episodes. Nor is it "perfectly acceptable" to run around creating articles for every episode of a series when they are not notable, and it has nothing to do with WP:NOTPAPER. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you find any reliable sources which provide significant coverage ? I can't. Claritas (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 5 June 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. JForget 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Creator removed CSD tag, possible WP:COI and has continued to edit after being informed of the policy. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB in all categories. Promotional tone and text. GregJackP (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

really. You'd delete the tourism voice of a city after a hurricane. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.13.62 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment

We very much apologize if our lack of Knowledge (XXG) knowledge caused us to break any of your policies. It certainly wasn't our intent. We were instructed (clearly and patiently, might I add :) ) what we needed to do to make the entry more acceptable. The message said something like "don't remove this header statement until you've made the appropriate changes, and then added remarks at the bottom describing the changes that were made." In our opinion, we did just that, and believed we were fine to remove the statement. Now we know we were wrong, and absolutely apologize for not following protocol correctly.

That said, there are only a handful of CVB Knowledge (XXG) entries, and even less (2, 3?) that don't have error messages up top. NYC & Company (though, albeit, a much larger entity) is very similar in setup (as an organization) as we are, so we used their article as a template. We also used The Galveston County Daily News's article as a guideline as well.

It is not our intent whatsoever to self-serve or to self-promote. However, like both those examples, Galveston.com & Company is a viable entity, and - like the Daily News - is a very important source of information in the Southeast Texas area. We very much invite a writer, or writers, to edit our entry to make it more acceptable.

We also have read - and understand - Knowledge (XXG)'s "notability" policy. At the end of the day, however, we are all humans. And what is notable to you or someone else, may or not be notable to another. It's subjective.

However, we'd like to raise one point: We invite you to look anywhere else in the United States and find one more example of a public/private relationship between a Convention & Visitors Bureau and private corporation - where an official CVB "tourism" website of a destination is actually owned by a private corporation. Quite simply, you won't find one. Anywhere.

And that, indeed, is notable.

Thanks very much for this opportunity. And, again, we apologize for any problem we may have caused.

Jimcordell (talk)

Jimcordell (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment

Please read Knowledge (XXG)'s notability rules below, and our responses:

...is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.

1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

RESPONSE: The Galveston County Daily News publishes our content daily on its website: http://galvestondailynews.com/events

2.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

RESPONSE: 2007 American Business Award (The Stevie) for Best Overall Website, and in 2009, Convention South named us one of the Top 15 Tourism Bureau Websites in the country

3.The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine

RESPONSE: Again, The Galveston County Daily News publishes our content daily on its website: http://galvestondailynews.com/events

Jimcordell (talk) Jimcordell (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"I am looking for an approved Knowledge (XXG) writer to write a unique and creative article about Galveston.com, the official tourism website of Galveston Island, Texas - and one of the state's most popular in visitor traffic. There are no current articles on Knowledge (XXG). Galveston.com & Company is the company that produces Galveston.com, along with other tourism-related websites and services. As the use of marketing material is not going to be approved on Knowledge (XXG), we need to be discrete as to what information we put on there. I need an experienced Knowledge (XXG) writer to help me get an article published. Writer will be asked to format the content the client provides to conform to wikipedia guidelines. Page must be submitted and appear in main wiki without deletion. We prefer someone who has an active account and can provide examples of their pages."

  • Comment

So, using that logic: It's okay to promote a newspaper. Or a tourism agency for New York City.

This article is NOT about Galveston.com the website, just as NYC & Company's page isn't about nycgo.com. The page is about Galveston.com & Company, which includes a website, a travel agency, the DestinationNext web portal software, Virtual Galveston Island in Second Life, an official relationship with a tourism bureau, etc.

And yes. We did attempt to have someone write a Knowledge (XXG) article about Galveston.com & Company. Because - as you've stated - it isn't appropriate to write one for yourself. (Again, being novices, we didn't realize such a request - in Knowledge (XXG)'s eyes - was second only to treason.) Anyway, after 3 days of this? I'm exhausted. Life's way too short. Include the article, or do not. Whether Knowledge (XXG) finds Galveston.com & Company notable - or not - truly isn't, well, notable. I'm headed to the beach.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.150.53 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 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 Floor Jansen. T. Canens (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ReVamp (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 does not assert any notability, and absolutely no third-party resources provided. No significant coverage found elsewhere. — Timneu22 · talk 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not uncommon in these debates for the comments of apparent single purpose accounts to be tagged as such. Sometimes there is off-site canvassing or abuse of mutiple accounts to "stack" votes. I'm not saying you are involved in any such things, but if we were to see a flood of SPAs it would tend to indicate one or the other of those things was happening. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • keep: The structure of this AFD page is a bit confusing to me... anyway.... Well, I don't care much about this band and the issue but here's my two cents: yes, the band is still a minor one in terms of notability. However the singer is from a significant band. If I'm not mistaken, in regard to wikipedia's guidelines this fact should secure a certain notability for this band. On the other hand I must admit the lack of sources is a concern indeed. Is that so difficult to find reliable for this band?Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I ran a few through Google Translator, and they were all similar to the Blabbermouth reference in the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Barry Weisleder (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)

Minor union official and even more minor political figure who has never been elected to office. Few sources. Be in Nepean (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Addenda With all due respect, here's a link to an article in the Toronto Star — not an insignificant paper and the self-claimed #1 internet news provider in Canada — directly quoting Weisleder in the lead: Star Link. Notability seems pretty obvious from this one snippet alone (although the full piece is pay-to play, unfortunately). This is clearly a misdirected challenge here... Carrite (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
that article merely verifies he's a union spokesperson, it's not an article about Barry himself like his career history or education. it does little to advance a case his notability. this article is definitely worthy of being deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 6 June 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) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Routsis Savas (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)

Declining speedy A7 as notability may be detectable by others. Discuss. UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Argument against - - - This person is notable and in fact rather famous and respected among the Astrology, periodicals and Fashion communities as shown by her having written for several magazines. Furthermore, as shown in the local online paper Star News where she resides, she is an active participant in editorial matters for the paper as well as the subject of articles. Additionally, she was a reporter for CNN's Style with Elsa Klensch before becoming the manager of CNN's new york newsroom unit. Lastly, of which there is a category of, she was a game show contestant on Jeopardy!. She may not be a Connie Chung in the field of journalism but her contributions to media and American culture should not be ignored.BGinOC (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Various astrology books and articles published by her have not received any secondary coverage or significant attention by independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Argument against - - - I defer to the nomination of her book Seventeen: Total Astrology in the American Library Association's 2001 list of Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers as significant attention to her writing ability and relevance to young readers.BGinOC (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There were 78 other titles on the list that year. This book did not make it into the top ten. This doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP's notability citeria - the book itself is not notable and its author even less so. andy (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because her book listed in the 2001 list of Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers was not in the top ten should be irrelevant especailly considering that we have musicians listed herein who's works never made the top 40 but were in the top 100. At what point does a number represent relevance? the Top 10 (letterman's famous lists), the Top 100 (Billboard) or the Top 500 (Fortune 500)? Point is, this author has not only had multiple books published (granted they were for a niche that is considered by many to be a joke, but nonetheless they were published and sold well. If Ralph H. Blum is worthy of mention in Knowledge (XXG) for his studies regarding runes and the publication of his only publication "The Book of Runes," than so should Savas whose notoriety expands beyond divination and astrology but also includes fashion writing and even an appearance on Jeopardy!BGinOC (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Ralph Blum was the subject of an article that was deleted because of his lack of notability. The article was reinstated so that it could be used as a redirect, as he played a minor role in the development of Runic magic. Savas doesn't even rise to Blum's low level of notability as a footnote because she's done nothing other than write some non-notable books and appear on a gameshow! Unlike Blum she doesn't even merit a redirect. andy (talk) 22:54, 5 June 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 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (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 main issue here is notability. There appears to be three very solid reviews which attest to the notability of this book: in the American Journal of Psychiatry (see ), the Journal of Psychosomatic Research (see ) and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (192(7):512, 2004). But there has been considerable debate about whether these and other sources are adequate. The issue is being brought here to facilitate wider community discussion and to decide what do with this article. Johnfos (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Convenience link to the relevant notability guideline, Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to author The AJP review is written by a parapsychologist; this severely limits its usefulness as a source, but they appear to be independent enough for the purposes of WP:N. The JNMD source does not appear to be a substantive review. The JPR source is currently only being cited to support a statement that it exists; if there is good material here, it looks like it should probably be added to the article. On balance, treatment of this book looks like it would fit better at Ian Stevenson than as a stand-alone artcle. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to have pretty well-established notability, opposition to it appears to be ideological Valyard (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments of Johnfos and Valyard, especially that opposition appears to be ideologically motivated. In regard to notability, an additional point is that E. F. Kelly and E. W. Kelly list this book in Irreducible Mind as one of seven notable books on "cases of the reincarnation type" (CORT) (including 4 others by Stevenson, plus Shroder and Tucker) in their Introductory Bibliography of Psychical Research. Their annotation says "With this volume Dr. Stevenson shows that cases of the reincarnation type occur in modern Western cultures, many of them similar to those from Asian countries in which a belief in reincarnation is widespread. He describes some cases from early in the 20th century, and then reports 32 cases that he himself investigated." Thus, this book is noted in scholarly circles for covering Western cases, which were previously thought not to exist. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The reviews are sufficient for notability under our rules. whether it makes sense to merge them anyway is a different sort of decision--for which we really have no applicable guidelines, so if people want to write the separate article there is no justification for deleting or forcing the merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The multiple journal reviews give notability. First Light (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep . I agree to Valyard. This author and this book are important for the subject. Vini Siqueira 20:02, 8 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Keith Smith (engineer) (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 the notability requirements for BLP. Checking in Google Books only reveals obscure mentions rather than something to demonstrate significant impact. There have been a few contributors over six months (and this is a topic with some enthusiasts about) so raising for discussion as an expert may disagree. Fæ (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See Railway Transportation August 1957, "Unique Piggy-back Operations at Stirling North".
A few magazine references would probably be sufficient. Obviously if there were any book sources then this would be a far more convincing way of demonstrating notability. Fæ (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly an important person in respect of the history of Australian Railways. I have just added a number of links to the article, which should clarify the issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 30 May 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) 00:18, 5 June 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) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

List of roads in Prescott and Russell Counties by municipality (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)

Roadcruft without context / no evidence of notability. This desolate county has two articles covering its roads, and only the list of numbered roads is notable for inclusion. This is essentially a list of names with a link here or there. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Common practise is to have a list of the numbered roads maintained by a county (which there already is another article covering them). There is no subjective qualification for which roads are notable enough to be in this list and which are too minor. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:30, 30 May 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) 00:11, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All Pro Dad (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 organization (primary sources and self-praise) Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 29 May 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) 00:09, 5 June 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. JForget 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope Sideroad (Ottawa) (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)

Road with no indication of notability ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I created the article as the street was referenced at List of roads in Ottawa Andy Johnston (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Firstly, I'd like to thank User:Andy Johnston for taking the initiative to try and make red links into blue links. However, in this case, it looks like it should never have been red linked in the first place. In searching for sources it does not appear to be a notable road. Note that the name should be Hope Side Road. It's mentioned here and there, bur there is nothing written about it, nor is there any indication that I can find that the road has some sort of historical significance. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe every numbered road has the potential for an article. It generally requires a trip to the county administration building to find out its history and significance, but almost all roads have a history to tell. Until this one does, however, it doesn't need an article - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 18:28, 31 May 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, 5 June 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. no consensus after three weeks JForget 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Carryl Varley (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 applicable notability guidelines WP:ENT and WP:NMUSIC. I have not been able to find significant coverage to meet the WP:General notability guideline either.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To expand on this (since the article claims 2 charting singles) I don't see any evidence in reliable sources to prove that she was actually involved in those productions. Example searches: . Notability requires verifiable evidence.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:17, 22 May 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, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnotable person, failing WP:ENT and WP:N. Has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the one link given here seems like some kinda profile thing. Without significant coverage, cannot meet WP:BLP requirements, therefore deletion is the best option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 31 May 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, 5 June 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 Agnostic Front. Redirecting as a poorly sourced BLP. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vinnie Stigma (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 biography 24fan24 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 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, 29 May 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, 5 June 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 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pancavidya (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 cannot find significant coverage for this topic; it could be merged into something about Buddhism. —fetch·comms 00:51, 22 May 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, 29 May 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, 5 June 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---Balloonman 06:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

HUMUS project (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)

Speedy contested, elevating for discussion, but I believe it still fails notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - You're the one that declined the speedy. I appreciate that you followed up on it. With no comment on whether or not that was speedyable, it's a clear delete here. Needs at least some indication of notability. I could perhaps entertain a redirect to the department it's from, but I'd want a reference to verify that. Nobody's going to be searching for this if that source can't be found. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • comment - Note this significance: The HUMUS project was a environmental model of national significance since it was the first such attempt to model environmental pollution from agricultural source and evaluate alternative practices to reduce agricultural (non-point source) pollution. The project involved the early use of national level Geographic Information Systems (GIS) datasets for such analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrologist101 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 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) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Considering how much readily available scientific and governmental literature goes into explicit detail about this subject, deletion seems nonsensical at best.   — C M B J   01:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:ab}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alan Pearlman (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 biography of a living director has been on the namespace for five years, and yet it still doesn't have any sources; and speaking of unsourced info about living persons, I think this should be deleted unless there's a decent previous version of it. The most important fact (which is at the bottom) probably does explain why he's famous, but it isn't sourced either. Minimac (talk) 04:48, 29 May 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, 5 June 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. One source was added and since the original consensus was to "keep" and the nominator is arguing for a rewrite, not deletion, it can now be closed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Rony Fahed (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 needs to be rewritten. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Sorry, but "need to be rewritten" is not valid criteria for deleting an article. He is a professional basketball player as well as an international player with his national team.--TM 02:14, 29 May 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, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. The article is an unsourced BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Though about as far from my subject as can be imagined, it took about 5 min to find a ref for the major accomplishment. The other parts can presumably be sourced from the same site. For athletes, I find the team sites are a good starting point, & I've rescued many unsourced BLPs from there. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 5 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

NERF wars (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 established. All sources are fansites, which do not pass our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this article was kept two years ago, but nothing has happened which would warrant an article in those two years.— Dædαlus 02:03, 29 May 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, 5 June 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 West Branch, Michigan. JForget 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

West Branch Children's Film Festival (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 do not see anything more than trivial mentions in sources, and do not think that this is notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I am now in support of a redirect; see below. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:41, 7 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) 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*Delete per nom and others, does not seem notable Traxs7 17:22, 6 June 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lansing Model Railroad Club (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)

Fairly long standing model railroad club that seems to have attracted no (written) attention. After some diligent searching I can find nothing written about the club (no news articles, book references) and nothing on the web that I would class as reliable. Everything out there seems to be either directory entries (confirming they exist), advertising in hobbyist places or the clubs own website. Nothing that is independant of the club and allows confirmation of any of the material in the article. Does not seem to be a subject we can have a reliably sourced on. Peripitus (Talk) 01:22, 29 May 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) 23:59, 4 June 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.

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

↑