Knowledge

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

The result was Withdrawing as per Metropolitan90. Since it is the first time I close an AfD, can a more experienced editor please check I did not foul up? Thanks! Salvio ( ) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

( ) (disambiguation) (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 think the article covers a non-notable topic Salvio ( ) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Emoticon. Mnmazur (talk)

Comment I think we should include the symbol "()" in the article, but I fear that "( ) (disambiguation)" would be an extremely improbable redirect... Salvio ( ) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Given that there is an album by this name as well as a film, both of which have Knowledge articles, having a disambiguation page isn't a bad idea. The bad idea was to name these items ( ), but there's nothing Knowledge can do about that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I must say I was unaware we had an article about those two masterpieces of rhetoric; therefor, apart from vaguely feeling old, I withdraw this nomination... Salvio ( ) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Even though I'm not sure about the whitespace just redirecting it to the emoticon page makes no sense. Gonna add a link to 'brackets' on there too.--Savonneux (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The pre-existing hatnote already on ( ) makes this disambiguation redundant. Doc StrangeLogbook 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep three entries is an acceptable size for a dab page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly fine disambig page. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 10 May 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. Arbitrarily0  13:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Padraig Parkinson (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)

Poker player with some nominal success. Biggest claim to fame is a 1999 3rd place finish at the WSOP main event and having won a television series event which is not very significant. ---Balloonman 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Notified WP:Poker---Balloonman 17:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I think he's on the border of notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody could come in and salvage this article. As is, I don't think he quite makes it. 3rd place in the WSOP today would get my attention, but in 1999 it wasn't nearly the same thing.---Balloonman 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, just short of speedy keep. The article's external links have two reliable source interviews of him, including one in three parts. His third place in 1999 is ireelevant to notability. What matters is independant coverage in third party reliable sources. He has it, though obviously the article could be improved with refs. 2005 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of poker players have short bio's written up on them. That is not an indication of notability, it is one of existence. The two interviews do give some credence, but I'd still want more. Interviews are not all that uncommon---speciality presses are often looking for "news". If there are actual articles about him, then I'd more than willingly withdraw. There is just too much crap to find articles about him.---Balloonman 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The fellow writes for Cardplayer, is quoted as an expert in mainstream coverage, has a lot of interviews, profiles and news stories about tournament wins. There is so "much crap" because he is notable, not because he is not. 2005 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:BEFORE. Google News Archives have plenty of good coverage: . Joal Beal (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I gotta go delete on this one... Yeah, he's earned a lot of money playing poker, but there's been no major championship wins that I see. Borderline... but we're not a poker almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with a lot of these poker articles is that they are of people who are less meaningful than local politicians. Local politicians/radio/tv personalities may have some coverage, but outside of the poker world they are non-entities---even within the poker world, their notability is nominal at best.---Balloonman 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment While I agree with you, and I believe the article should be deleted, I would caution that "not meaningful" does not necessarily translate into "not notable" -- Something with meaning implies that individuals place value on it, and that drags in point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep while a respect the Nominator I must disagree with this choice, Padraig Parkinson is the 3rd most tournament poker winner in all of Ireland with over $1.5 million in earnings, his 3rd place finish at the 1999 Main Event isn't his only success in poker not to mention that he is the author of Paddy's Corner @ Cardplayer this is his latest article from this month and is a writer and sponsored pro @ Boylepoker . ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ 06:41, 12 May 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. Arbitrarily0  13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Liston (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)

Security consultant who does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Only reference is self-published. Created by a sock of User:JohnBambenek, who has since been banned for sock-puppetry. Claritas (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Notability issues ... and the sources don't cover the article.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just checking -- has the required wp:before search been done? Or is nom's statement as to the sources in the article only.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent a reasonable time looking for significant coverage through thet web, but didn't find anything. Claritas (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking you didn't do a good search, then. Suggestion: Try searching for the phrases "Tom Liston" and "security" in google news. Then go to archives, and run the search there. You will find more sources in archives ... and I just tossed a couple in from books.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Per this, this, this, this, and this. Lots of coverage, by many RSs. We need to do better searches before nom'ing and voting, so as not to waste everyones' time or delete notable peoples' bios.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Claritas (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Ample coverage. Dream Focus 23:14, 10 May 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 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Areapal (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)

Nominated for speedy, but asserts notability with one reference from Business Line (a publisher of whitepapers). Other reference (expressbuzz) probably doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources. No Google news hits. OhNoitsJamie 17:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep :Ok. Should i cite more sources ? . But most of their news in India were of Print media. From papers like Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Times of India's Bangalore Mirror. etc. So what should i do ? . Your inputs would be helpful to me in creating better articles please guide as this is my first article and i wouldn't want it to be deleted at any cost :) . Thanks for your time. - Spoiltsport (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CITEHOW for some advice on citing newspapers. John of Reading (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@John Thank you for your suggestion :) - Spoiltsport (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: @every1 Added Some more citations . All i had to do is a general google search and went to the news sites like http://deccanchronicle.com , http://bangaloremirror.com , http://hindu.com and searched for areapal. And they are trusted news agencies in India. Thanks - Spoiltsport (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Enough coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. I have cleaned up the article a bit now (disclosure, original author asked for my help as an editor familiar with south india). Business Line is one of the top three business newspapers in India and express buzz is the website of The New Indian Express. And the author has provided coverage in The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and Bangalore Mirror. These are major newspapers in India with circulation in millions. Taken together the company meets GNG criteria easily.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:41, 10 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakbeat (drummer) (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)

Drummer who does not meet WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable sources found - only mentioned in context of N-Dubz. Claritas (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would actually put it as db-band, as he is not notable. WackyWace 17:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - The 'references' are youtube and a WP link. Clubmarx (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Should have been speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 May 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 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Menachem Creditor (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 indication this individual meets requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, based on the discussion at the first AfD--but I do agree that the article was lacking third party references to reflect the information presented there. I added some sources. Creditor appears to be a reasonably significant and controversial figure within the Conservative movement as an advocate for egalitarianism and gay rights, among other things.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, although even more sources would be helpful for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep to me this makes the cut. There are sources in the article to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep He gets mentioned in the news. calls him "a leading advocate of gay ordination". Dream Focus 09:15, 13 May 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 The Towering Inferno. Shimeru (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Glass Tower (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)

Fictional skyscraper which does not meet any of the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. Article may also be a violation of WP:OR Claritas (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to The Towering Inferno. The notability of the movie "The Towering Inferno" does not automatically make the fictional tower itself notable. The Glass Tower was created solely for that one movie, and much of this page talks about filming locations and how various movie scenes were created. To my knowledge, the purposes of several floors were explicitly mentioned in the in-movie dialogue; this could be incorporated into the movie article in a section regarding the tower itself. The name "Glass Tower" is clearly a plausible search term for the movie, but I couldn't locate a sufficient number of reliable independent sources to justify keeping this page separate from the article about the movie. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No significance on its own. Joal Beal (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge per SoCalSuperEagle Polarpanda (talk) 19:17, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cavenger Image Architects (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)

With apparently no secondary coverage online for this firm, there does not appear to be any possiblity of establishing notability. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. The article cites several references and is obviously notable because of the principals involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on real estate developed donahue peebles that doesn't cite any sources other than his company's website (http://en.wikipedia.org/R._Donahue_Peebles) - yet that article seems to be cleared. It seems that's an important article because he's a notable person, in the same vein as this is. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

R. Donahue Peebles hasn't been "cleared", it's tagged for lack of references. Please see WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG for the relevant notability guidelines (note - the coverage would need to relate to the firm, not the people associated with it - see WP:NOTINHERITED). With only 5 Google hits, none of which are secondary coverage, it would seem impossible for this subject to meet those guidelines. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is actually the case, look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/JWT for a great example of a firm who has 0 press citations, yet has not been flagged for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. First, other stuff exists; this deletion discussion is concerned solely with the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. That said, the merits are lacking. As Cassandra 73 noted, there are minimal secondary sources. Accordingly, this article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable PR firm. Alfie808, if the article is deleted you can request that it be placed in your user space so you can work on it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 16 May 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Anthony.bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Harker (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)

Unreferenced bio since it creation in 2005. I looked around and could not verify any of the facts stated in the article. Googlesearching produces mostly Knowledge mirrors or pages where the info looks to have been lifted from Knowledge. No mention of Harker at Santa Rosa Junior College site, where Harker was supposed to have been a chancellor. In fact, the College does not seem to have the post of the chancellor and instead the highest ranking administrator is the President. Fails WP:V, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX. Things like this are why Knowledge reconsidered its policy of allowing an IP address to create an encyclopedia article . Congratulations to 140.247.154.20 (maybe I should him Mr. Harker) for creating something that sounded true for 4 1/2 years. Although this wasn't drawn from a book, it did end up in one of those Webster's Quotations books that preserved much of Knowledge's early nonesense in print form. If you accomplish nothing else in your life, you did get into a book. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. I've tagged it for speedy. Should I just delete it? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I don't think anyone removed a PROD tag. In any event, an article created by an IP address is, to me, no different than an article created by a sockpuppet. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 10 May 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. Spartaz 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scott McLean (BNP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable. Candidate who receives no support. Does not meet GNG or POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep He may not be an elected candidate but he is Deputy chairman of the BNP, and its organiser for Scotland. That I think does make him notable, he is not just another fai8led politician.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak delete. He's received some news coverage as deputy chairman of the BNP and regional organiser for Scotland, including Panorama, and he's notorious for giving a Nazi salute:. But I can't find what I'd class as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

• Comment http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-boss-accused-of-stirring-up-racial-tensions-567210.html

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/the-BNP-unmasked.php

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=47

http://www.mirror.co.uk/topics/british-national-party-bnp/

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=249

There are a few others but they do not seem to be more then just mentions that he is standing. There is also a vague BBC profile.

So he has received some coverage.

• Delete A minor figure in a minor party, little significant news coverage. --Snowded 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Deputy chairman might just possibly make him notable, but we would need more indication of how important this post is in terms of BNP internal structures, how long he held it etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep A long as it is presenting accurate information, I see no reason to delete it. The only thing I would say is for someone to try and extend it with information such as date of birth or a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but that argument is contrary to "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information", see WP:NOT. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage for this person. --Sky4t0k (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per sky4t0k. The coverage all seems to be for the party with only incidental mentions for this guy. David V Houston (talk) 19:00, 16 May 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 deletion under WP:G12 - unambiguous copyright infringement. - Vianello (Talk) 22:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rafi Hamid (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 with some WP:COI issues. The article makes some claims to notability but I don't think they're enough. The article suggests he's been "recognized" by DrivingSales.com but it looks to me like he's just listed there among a laundry list of other people where folks can place reviews. Most of the rest is very peacockish. The last link, to a press release, perhaps contains some salvageable notability claims but I think they skate at the boundary. I welcome other opinions. — e. ripley\ 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No references whatsoever, even to prove that he won any awards for being a "professional trainer" (or which ones he won). Also, this statement,

  If and when you hear "INTERNET DEALER" you know it was started by Rafi Hamid in 2001 and now 10 years later it is a buzz word in an automotive industry.

  is highly advertisement-like, and has no reference. --Brandon5485 20:14, 9 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Antony Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Recreation of previously deleted page. All the concerns which led to the original page being deleted still apply. There are no third party sources which cover Little in any detail and his claim to fame seems to be being a local councillor in a small city and an unsuccessful election candidate. He therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. as violation of WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure it does fail, as a city council, Norwich falls I think wihtin the context of a province (its not govenerned by Norfolk council, but as a seperate entity) as such he may meet the criteria. Basicly it dep0ends oon how wiki defiines province.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on Table of administrative divisions by country, Norwich is a third level authority: first level would be the equivalent of US state and in terms of England, the provincial equivalent would be the Regions of England, only one of which (London) has its own council. Numerous previous AFDs have judged that local councillors on smaller cities don't meet the criteria and for good reason - if we set the bar that low we'd have millions of articles to deal with. Valenciano (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that the regions have no elected assembly. The equvalent to a US state in terms of elected representives are the counties, unless you are saying that the next level of elected representation does not count?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The regions of England are clearly the equivalent of a province. In the absence of an assembly covering those regions then yes, the next level of government doesn't by default become a province. Otherwise that would lead to the nonsensical situation that in the future if an East of England Assembly was set up, councillors would then cease to be notable. As notability is not temporary that would be against policy. Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Arguments over whether Norwich Council should count as a province is a red herring - what was really ought to consider is how significant the city councillors are - and compared to members of the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies, the Greater London Assembly or US State legislatures, there's no contest. I did find an article that he was the subject of in the Guardian, but that seems to be part of blanket coverage of all Parliamentary candidates. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete -- I am not sure whether Norwich is a unitary or district council, but whichever it is its councillors are NN. As a Parliamentary candidate who was not elected, he is also NN. Summary NN: comclusion delete. Arguments based on the American (or Canadian) system are inappropriate. When we had regional assemblies, they were indirectly elected joint bodies between councils, with no legislative powers and membership did not confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 13 May 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 La Trobe University. Feel free to add any content to that article JForget 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Academic dress of La Trobe University (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 reason to have an entire article dedicated to one university's graduation regalia. — e. ripley\ 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to La Trobe University (It's an unlikely search term, but redirect in order to retain edit history) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect per Boing!. If La Trobe did something wildly unusual or unique, I'd say merge over to the article on academic dress in general - but that doesn't appear to be the case. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect or just plain delete, nothing here merits a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant topic with no real notability. -Reconsider! 09:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge and snow close, and lets move on.--Adam in MO Talk 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - no referances Sophie(: 12:54, 14 May 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 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Marsha Friedman (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 proposed deletion of this article on 9 April, but the PROD was removed by the author. I do not believe that the concerns have been addressed, so the exact same reasoning applies here, viz. Does not appear to be a notable person, lacking in "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" per WP:GNG, WP:BIO.  Chzz  ►  11:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect (to EMSI Public Relations, which seems to be Ms Friedman's sole claim-to-fame). TFOWR 12:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete promotional piece with no claims of importance. Do not redirect but also delete EMSI Public Relations which itself is non notable but another promotional piece Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I certainly wouldn't object to t'other article being deleted, in which case obviously I'd support "delete" instead of "delete/redirect" for this article. TFOWR 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks in dependent coverage in reliable sources. I've tagged the company's article with G11 as it was based on press releases only. Pcap ping 05:22, 11 May 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 15:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkware (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 does not city ANY source whatsoever and its notability is in question. It is probably an original research. Furthermore, it is not an encyclopedic stub; it is more like a Wiktionary entry.

Delete or transfer to Wiktionary. Fleet Command (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Transfer to Wiktionary I've heard of this; I've never heard it called that. However, if a reference can be found, then it could be a definition on Wiktionary. --Brandon5485 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per wp:neo. Pcap ping 22:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 16 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

North End Eagles (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 know very little about hockey, but this article seems to be a hoax. I was not able to find any reliable coverage attesting to the existence of this team, let alone its status as a professional outfit. Also, the article is replete with sentences like "Many speculate that the team was actually consisted of played aged 18–29, jacked up on steroids, and placed in the 14-15 division because they couldn't keep up with the adults. Many team members had full grown beards and told stories of their life in the early 1980s.", which have been present since it was initially created. Lankiveil 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The team does seem to exist, however they're a street hockey team, not an ice hockey team. I found a few non-reliable references to them through Google, but no news articles. Cheers, TFOWR 12:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as per above, not to mention the fact that the article is unreferenced, and contains blatant hearsay in the controversies section. All this with no redeeming qualities pretty much screams delete. KaySL (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. We don't even have an article about the tournament that they keep trying to win. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as either a hoax or a real but non-notable team being hyped up into hoax territory. The external links in this article don't link to anything relevant. It appears that most of the references found on Google to this team are to mirrors of this Knowledge article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 May 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 01:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull (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 dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Knowledge is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. john Evereadyo2 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep - malicious nomination by vandalism-only account. Rcawsey (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep - As per previous editor. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked the creator of the AfD for 24 hours for disruptive editing-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep and rename: I do not see anyting malicious in this AFD, and I do not understand why the AfD notice was removed from the page. Removal of AfD notices before the issue is formally settled is against the guidelines. Please explain. This said, the article is definitely at the wrong title because it is not about pit bulls, a term that is amply explained at the disambiguation page. It should be moved to agressiveness in dogs or something similar.  Andreas  14:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This AfD has now been formatted correctly, listed at WP:AFD, the AfD link has been reinserted into the article, and the originator of the AfD has been unblocked with an apology.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The article should probably be called pit bull legislation and developed into a spinoff of the overgrown (106KB) article breed-specific legislation. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep - "Pit Bull" is such a common term in the U.S. ASPCA uses the term as a catch all. The article does a good job of explaining the meaning and what the term entails.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. There is no cogent reason for deletion. Joal Beal (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Move - , sections and put them in with relevant articles. Because Pit Bull is a common term only used in the U.S. by the ASPCA ect, as a catch all. Is exactly why this article needs to be changed or renamed. It doesn't represent a world view. Evereadyo2 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -- 1) More than half of the nominator's edits concern this article. About a third of the nominator's edits appear to be canvassing. 2) Deletion or inclusion is based on notability, which is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, which this article appears to have. Maurreen (talk) 01:23, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearu (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 search for reliable sources has failed to support the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Kateda appears to be the same art, can we include it in this AfD discussion? Astudent0 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not aware of Knowledge policies on trying to include more than one article in a single AfD discussion (i.e., we would have to check to get a firm answer on proper protocol), but in this case the subjects look different enough to me that I would want to consider them separately anyway. Janggeom (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: The only sources that I found are what is in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I find no independent sources that indicate this art is notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is a poorly written article that fails to show the notability of its subject. I can't find independent sources and the art itself fails WP:MANOTE. The article links to Kateda, which seems to be the same art. That article has multiple issues and probably also should be deleted. Astudent0 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 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 speedily deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

F.O.S.I. (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, and none likely as it is illegal distribution of software. John Vandenberg 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've just noticed Category:Warez groups which says that User:R.123/CUNT is a good notability guideline for warez groups. R.123 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since early 2006, and this userpage hasnt been mentioned often, except in some really old AFDs. If this is going to be a specialised notability benchmark, I think we need Knowledge:WikiProject Computing to develop and endorse it. John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That link completely goes against the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Has no chance of passing WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with List of warez groups. The site is an internet landmark: I used it ten years ago when I was new to the internet. Due to the nature of the topic, it will be hard to find sources for this. The only source I found: http://filenetworks.blogspot.com/2009/01/fosi-appz-homepage-direct-downloads-of.html A blog specialized in file sharing. Seems to be active as a scene group too for the last 10 years: http://orlydb.com/?q=-fosi. The nfo's are the same. Passing WP:BIO is a not an issue as it is not certain it is currently one person or a group. Seems to me it passes CUNT. A screenshot of the typical look/logo could be added. --Ondertitel (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Zero independent coverage in reliable sources. The article is obviously promotional. Tagged as G11. Pcap ping 05:13, 11 May 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. As noted, WP:Crystal applies here. Information is to varue to warrant an article for now. Excirial 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Love/Affair (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. This is an article about an album "set to be released sometime in early 2011." And that's about all the information the article contains. No references, precious little likelihood of finding anything substantial to say about it. WP:CRYSTAL. Shimeru (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (WP:CRYSTAL could well have been written with "released sometime in the future" in mind). TFOWR 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, way too early for this article to even exist. Nothing reliable to support it; let's concentrate on Love King for now. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL (my PROD notice was removed). -Reconsider! 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Crystal Ball and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:36, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sierra (programing language) (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 any refs to support this. If it exists, it appears to be non-notable. PROD to this effect removed without explanation. I42 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: per nomination, no evidence of existence. Goodvac (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say that google is the oracle of existing anything. This language is going through hard process of coming out. Soltysh (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • But something is needed in reliable sources to establish notability. I42 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Interestingly, the reference and external link both point to the same page, and the first line on the page invites us to "Read about Sierra on Knowledge". TFOWR 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting what external site are you talking about, I'm looking at either of them and can't find link to wikipedia. Soltysh (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I was talking about www.lightningstormsoftware.com. It's gone now, though. Google's cache is from 4 days prior, and has no links, so I guess we can at least deduce that their website is being actively developed ;-) TFOWR 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is the other website, by the way? I've only seen the one I linked to above. TFOWR 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - any programming language even remotely notable would have an entry in http://99-bottles-of-beer.net. This one does not. PleaseStand 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not appear to be notable. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1348474 doesn't count, and I can't find anything else about this. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:22, 14 May 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 Aomori, Aomori. JForget 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tsukuda Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no separate notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do. The spree killer link is dead, and if an article is necessary about his schooling, it should be the high school Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to the article Aomori, Aomori. The school is operated by the City. Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." I'm sorry for creating this short article.--ACSE (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, that is why we are all here, to create and share information. Keep up the good work. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect - As per ACSE -- that's exactly the right response. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to the article Aomori, Aomori per usual practice. No WP:BEFORE reasoning from nominator why a merge or redirect is not appropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's better to have a discussion like this about it than to have decided for myself that it should be redirected, should it in fact turn out to be notable. Hence no mention of merge or redirect from me. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect per above. Chris, you could have tried a bold merge, but no worries. tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 May 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. Nomination withdraewn DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yō Takeyama (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 stated notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Does not even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability now seems to have been established thanks to efforts of user Schmidt. --DAJF (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. A7 tagged. Pcap ping 05:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• detagged plenty of ghits for this writer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So what? Can you find some significant coverage, so he passes WP:AUTHOR? Can you even name a significant work of his? This seems to be his IMDB profile. Pcap ping 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes... it is the same person. Look to WP:ANYBIO where his award nominations show notability. Schmidt, 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've added to the article the screenplays of Hiroshi Takeyama, (assuming it's the same author), which were nominated but did not win the Award of the Japanese Academy for best screenplay. I still don't think is enough for WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 11:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  Look to WP:ANYBIO and consider his nominations for notable awards. Schmidt, 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I'm willing to wp:agf that Agency for Cultural Affairs prizes are notable, although they don't even have IMDB pages; Weak keep. Pcap ping 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (yes, the same fellow)

• Keep and expand the article, which does now assert notability per WP:ANYBIO in that the subject "has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". The Award of the Japanese Academy is quite notable in Japan, and even a nomination is an honor for a screenwriter. Notable in Japan is notable enough for en.Knowledge. Schmidt, 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Note I've begun expansion and cleanup and have sourced one of the award nominations, but I need lots of help from Japanese-reading Wikipedians to translate these news, book, and general search results. Schmidt, 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, appears to have written some fairly major film scripts, as the award nominations indicate. I'll try to do some work on the article tomorrow before giving my !vote. Dekkappai (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note Japanese Wiki indicates he has won a few prizes, including the Hashida Prize for an NHK series (Seizaemon Zanjitsuroku/清左衛門残日録, 1994) and a Geijutsusenjou (芸術選奨) in 2007. As usual with Ja-Wiki, this is not sourced. But I've found Ja-wiki to be usually accurate, and sourceable. Will do what I can tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ... and he wrote one of Kon Ichikawa's screenplay's. One of Ichikawa's minor works, but still, Ichikawa is a major, world-class director... Dekkappai (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm finding bits in the news such as this one from Yomiuri Shimbun-- It has a photo and brief profile/interview with Takeyama including: "脚本の竹山は、ＮＨＫ大河ドラマ「秀吉」や「利家とまつ」などを担当した人気脚本家。戦争をテーマにした作品も数多く、高倉健主演の映画「ホタル」や、テレビ東京系で放送されたドラマ「赤い月」なども手がけている。" (rough translation: Screenwriter Takeyama is the popular author in charge of such NHK period dramas as Hideyoshi and Toshiie and Matsu. Besides Hotaru starring Ken Takakura, and works broadcast on Tokyo Television, such as "Red Moon", he has written many war-themed works...")... I'm surprised we don't have an article on Hideyoshi-- one of the bigger NHK Taiga dramas, I think. And these are all pretty big events in TV-land in Japan... Anyway, works for major directors, major stars, major studios, interviewed in major paper which calls him a "popular writer"... are we getting "notable" yet? Dekkappai (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 21 pages/207 entries of writing credits at TV-Drama Database?.... Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • At the Writers Guild of Japan site: here, a search on "竹山洋" shows that his teleplays have been printed in their "Best of TV" annuals for 1983, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2008. The two awards I mentioned above are also confirmed here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As I make it out: This says the Agency for Cultural Affairs gave Takeyama an award for Sabu, and the Grand Prize for Ten to Sen (「点と線」（芸術祭大賞）竹山洋 / 「SABU～さぶ～」（芸術祭優秀賞）竹山洋). Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw nom, article is thousandfold improved and shows definite notability. Congratulations to all! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:38, 14 May 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 Takanawa. And this concerns for all related AFDs - feel free to add up content to the related articles JForget 15:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Takamatsu Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no separate notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do. One minor possibly noteworthy but unsourced claim in location. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to the article Takanawa per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 May 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 Motomiya, Fukushima (City). JForget 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shirasawa Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to the article Motomiya, Fukushima (City) per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 10 May 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 Shimotombetsu. JForget 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shimotombetsu Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to the article Shimotombetsu per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to parent article. WP:N, junior high schools/middle schools aren't inherently notable.--It's me...Sallicio! 04:34, 11 May 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 Chūō-ku, Sapporo. JForget 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sapporo Municipal Keimei Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to the article Chūō-ku, Sapporo per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 10 May 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 Kagoshima. JForget 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Matsumoto Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Give it more time to have information added to it. WikiManOne (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of notability, which this doesn't have. It's nicely done and pleasing to the eye, but it's not notable. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable junior high school. --TorriTorri 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Kagoshima per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per TerriersFan, this is a standard outcome of pre-secondary schools with no other claims to notability. tedder (talk) 17:30, 13 May 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

South West Side (Denver) (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 is purely original research. Although several sources are cited, none of them substantiates the main theme of the article, which is that there is a definable area of Denver known as the South West Side. Article has been tagged as original research for several months. There was some discussion of Denver neighborhoods and areas in User talk:Orlady/Archive 10#North Denver, but no source that I've seen supports the existence of this particular name. Other articles exist for individual neighborhoods, so deletion of this article would not deprive users of verifiable information. Orlady (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion for essentially the same reason:

North Denver, Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

West Denver, Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a few other articles about areas of Denver that have similar issues, but that I am not nominating at this time because either: (1) the article cite at least one source that sort of supports the existence of an area by that name or (2) I found an area of that name on this map. People more familiar with Denver may, however, want to add some additional articles to this nom. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all. My first reaction was that there might once have been communities by these names that once existed but were later absorbed by Denver or another suburb, but I couldn't find any evidence of this. I agree that North Denver, Colorado and West Denver, Colorado should both be deleted. I checked Geographic Names Information System at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ to try to locate any references to current or historical places by either name. Since GNIS also has listings for some schools and hospitals, presumably because these are often included in maps, I found West Denver Preparatory Charter School and Denver West Surgery Center, but nothing for West Denver or North Denver on their own. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all I agree that that these articles are original research. I am very familiar with the Denver Metro area and understand what the original author intended, but there is no documentation of these areas and there are no borders, they are general referenced .Denver uses a neighborhood system to separate areas. The Denver neighborhoods are specific, well documented and have clear geographical borders.Dbkilo (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all Denver micro-geography is better addressed in neighborhood articles that have definite borders. These articles are both superfluous and confusing. Vertigo700 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 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 Aoba-ku, Sendai. JForget 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Kamisugiyama Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to the article Aoba-ku, Sendai per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 10 May 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 Kadena Air Base. JForget 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Kadena Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to the article Kadena Air Base per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 10 May 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 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

John McSweeney (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article gives no reason subject is notable and has been tagged for improvement and notability for a year. I don't see how he meets WP:MANOTE. His claim to fame in the article is being one of Ed Parker's black belts, but notability isn't inherited. My searches found mainly non-independent mentions or mentions in connection with Ed Parker. He also wrote an autobiography, but that's obviously not an independent source. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I looked at the first AfD discussion, in which some potential sources were noted, but a brief examination did not show anything substantial, as far as I could see. Janggeom (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in the article shows notability and I couldn't find anything when I searched. I looked at the previous AfD and didn't find anything to show he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 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. Speedy deleted as A7 Excirial 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Patrick bell from arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability or references. from what i can see, this kid created the page out of sheer boredom. :P Qö₮$@37 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Free weekend (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 cant find any sources relating to this game, perhaps this doesn't even exist? Dwayne was here! 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a game, it's an expression used about a game.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete — (weak) Doesn't seem very notable; very few references. At the very least, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. moɳo 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Also, as mono said, not encyclopedic, and adds little value to the encyclopedia. Don't think a transwiki to Wiktionary would work, either. Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Very snowy.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:16, 15 May 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) 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

HP200A (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 particularly notable, no real context of sources to explain this either. —fetch·comms 02:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Yes, the topic is notable. Yes, there are sources. No, the nomination has not followed our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, and you find sources, starting with:

:Second (or is it third?) coming of HP

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 14, 1993

... equipment That instrument the HP200A was a breakthrough and one :of the first big purchasers was Walt Disney who ordered eight units for :his movieFantasia ...

It helped save the company, and was used to make a notable film. A Google book search shows results as well, one of them mentioning the Disney thing also. Dream Focus 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously a notable product, and several google books results provide adequate sourcing to document that notability, as indicated above. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the product that launched HP. It also apprently tuned hamonicas in addiiton to the functions that interested Disney. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 10 May 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. Spartaz 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Open4D (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Population reduction (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 claims to be about a specific theory which "states that there is a plan to depopulate the world through genocide". No evidence is presented for the existence of such a theory (whether called "Population reduction" or anything else), except as a name coined on Knowledge for some original research.

There is one sentence hinting at two specific conspiracy theories (regarding AIDS and Swine Flu) that might just be worth forming the start of a List of conspiracy theories alleging deliberate population reduction article, although I wouldn't recommend it. The rest of the article is unsalvagable original research / synthesis. Open4D (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete There are countless conspiracy theories in circulation. We should only have articles on those that are notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in relatively mainstream sources. This article does not meet that test.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete — Possible hoax; not notable. WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR all the way; not really WP:NPOV. moɳo 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There certainly exists a depopulation conspiracy theory and it's being presented by many conspiracy theorists. I also believe there could be presented tenable references to verify its existence. Unfortunately this article doesn't do that. __meco (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tenable references to verify the existence of a general all-encompassing "Population Reduction Theory"? (One that isn't just an original theory that someone came up with one day?) At best I have only seen any hint of notability for individual specific conspiracy theories that could go on my hypothetical List of conspiracy theories alleging deliberate population reduction by genocide article, such as Wangari Maathai's (now-retracted) AIDS theory (and even that one was arguably not about an attempt to counter general over-population; it was about an alleged attempt to carry out ethnic cleansing). Open4D (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative. Population reduction by 4/5 or more is allegedly part of the larger Illuminati-Luciferian NWO conspiracy. __meco (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But the article is not about that. It is a (poorly titled) article about "The Population reduction theory", which is claimed to be some sort of general all-encompassing theory of genocidal human population control. I think this conspiracy theory is original research by the article's creator, and not notable. Specific conspiracy theories (such as the one you mention, or the AIDS or Swine Flu ones) with coverage in reliable sources probably deserve coverage in Knowledge but I would argue that this clearly doesn't qualify. Open4D (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Article lacks cohesion and reliable sources. References 2 and 3 don't support the text, and what the heck does "Genetic use restriction technology" have to do with population reduction?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article currently has a wild-eyed tone but that just means that it is imperfect. Our editing policy is to improve it, not to cull it. Such improvement may be done by reference to some of the numerous sources on the topic such as these. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But what is the topic? Your Google Books link demonstrates the problem quite well; at the time of writing, the top result relates to plant & animal extinction, but the third result seems to be about China's one child policy. On the other hand, a contributor to the Knowledge article's talk page added a section linking the term 'Population reduction' to the practice of culling. And completely apart from any of these more normal usages of the term, the Knowledge article itself defines the term as a theory which "states that there is a plan to depopulate the world through genocide". All the text in the article is synthesis in relation to that (seemingly) newly invented definition. Open4D (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Warden. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Search Google news with the word conspiracy added in. There are results. I added one reference to the AIDS virus conspiracy, from a credible news source, they mentioning government research about depopulation necessary. Look of books list the conspiracies involving population reduction. Dream Focus 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see any reference for a Population reduction plan conspiracy. Sure, there are AIDS conspiracies, but AIDS does not (as of yet) decrease populations, only slows down growth. So it doesn't belong to this lemma. (At the very least, the article should be renamed "Population reduction theory".) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the summaries that appear from Google news. Its there. Dream Focus 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that the two unique 'Keep' standpoints so far are based on significantly different topics (Colonel Warden's being possibly plant/animal extinction, or human population control, and Dream Focus's being some of the AIDS conspiracy theories) probably actually lends support to my suggested deletion. These are all different topics that deserve to be covered on Knowledge, but would all be confusing in an article titled just Population reduction. As for the current text, it would fit well in an article titled An essay about a general all-encompassing conspiracy theory of genocidal population reduction, but such an article should probably be somewhere other than Knowledge. (And I don't think anyone will be able to find any Google Books results for that - false positives don't count please.) Open4D (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and fix it. We have kept lots of badly written articles, and odd stuff, and notable fringe theories. An article here will assist our core users - students - to do research on this controversy. It needs more work, more context, more viewpoints, and more and better sources, but it also needs rescue. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But which controversy? An AIDS/genocide conspiracy theory? Or a less conspiratorial controversy over something like population control or the concept of optimum population? Or maybe a controversy over the efficacy and ethics of culling? The discussion page section that I have already mentioned here would imply that the latter type of controversy would be the best (if any) to go on a page called Population reduction, though I am not suggesting that would be the best outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Open4D (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep there seems to be enough material for an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 14 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hertfordshire Hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable as per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Swansea Titans, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Essex Blades (American football), Knowledge:Articles for deletion/UEA Pirates and Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NTU Renegades. Apart from a mere handful of exceptions, British university sports teams for mainstream British sports such as soccer have next to no following. American Football in the UK has an even smaller following. Article is unreferenced, Google turns up only sites directly related to the team or its rivals. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. As per arguments on all of those other AFDs and as per nom. Most British university sports teams are not notable, and this does not seem to be one of the few exceptions. Pfainuk talk 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet notability standards on Knowledge. I'd love to go to one of these games, though!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:51, 10 May 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) 17:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner (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 prod was contested. This is an essay on a non-notable subject. Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can we just speedy delete this rather than drag it for 7 days? This is A7 (no assertion of notability) material all the way. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly, this doesn't fit speedy criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Deleteit is an essay, unless there is a major re-write it cannot be on Knowledge in its current form. Narutolovehinata5 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as an unsourced essay. TheFeds 02:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete it's a personal essay. Doc StrangeLogbook 05:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete this personal essay. Cliff smith 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is strictly an essay, and not a very good one. Joal Beal (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I don't even have to read the article to know in my bones that this is a notable topic. And so it proves as one can immediately find good sources such as Leave the Gun; Take the Cannoli: Food and Family in the Modern American Mafia Film , Food, film and culture, Food in Film, You don't have to eat every dish of rigatoni. The topic just needs work in accordance with our editing and deletion policies. Deletion isn't work - it is a lazy refusal to build the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep based on Colonel Warden's findings. Dream Focus 06:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal essay. --TorriTorri 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is just the start of something great. Furthermore, the article is sourced with reliable references. The premise of this article is definately valuable and the article may become featured-quality in time. Sapporod1965 (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 12:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The sources shown prove it is indeed a notable subject for film studies. I have rewritten the article to make it less essay like.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - shouldn't the title refer to mafiosi, unless the scenes referred to always show one man dining alone.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: essay. I see references about mafia movies and I see references about food in film. But you can't make articles by synthesizing a few topics together. This is WP:OR and i'd use it as an example of an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Arskwad (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Please take the time to review the sources before you make such uninformed comments. Sapporod1965 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. Thparkth (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, a WP:OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete- Unencyclopedic essay based on some synthesis of various sources. The creator of this article seems to have mistaken this encylopedia for TV Tropes. Reyk _YO! 06:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:24, 16 May 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. judging consensus against guidelines I note that NOTFILM cites being screened in a festival 5 years after release is evidence of notability in conjunction with references. The keep votes rely exclusively on the screening without successfully refuting the argument that there are no substantial sources. I therefore find the delete side to be citing policy based arguments while the keep side has not successfully refuted the delete argument through policy/guidelines Spartaz 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Salvation, Texas (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)

Short student film that was shown at a few minor film festivals, but for which I can find absolutely no substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources—not even a single mainstream review of any sort. This appears to fail both WP:NOTFILM and the GNG.

Note: Technically, this article was AfD'd once before; but I'm not creating this as a second nomination, since that nomination was part of of an AfD named for a different article and since this article at that time dealt with a completely different topic. Indeed, the addition of the material about the film was part of a misguided effort to "rescue" the article from deletion then. The outcome of the previous discussion is therefore of limited relevance to the fate of the present article. Deor (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep screening at three film festivals (given festival boards watch alot of films to select for festivals) sounds like a good basis for some form of notability. I suspect some print media might have some references. I had a brief look on google typing in some permutations but I am not good on which .com websites are considered reliable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, the film festivals make it notable. This article was nominated for deletion along with others at less than a year ago. Search for "Salvation, Texas" in that and you can some old debates. Dream Focus 04:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Does anyone have anything other than a vague assertion of "some form of notability"—actual substantive sources, for example? Such handwaves, unfortunately, do little to refute the fact that this topic meets none of the criteria of WP:NOTFILM. Deor (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  As it stands, it needs some referencing. The standards include being played at film festivals I see. As I said, I don't know film sources so well. Current article quality is not a reason for deletion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release", you mean? I can find no evidence that this 17-minute film was ever "released" at all, in any usual sense of the word, and the showings of the film among other student films in the festivals certainly haven't been five years after its completion. I am unsure what you mean by "current article quality"; if you can find anything in the article's past versions that demonstrate the notability of any of the various things that it's dealt with, please point them out. Deor (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. This was created as a means of disrupting the prior AfD of the prior subject and such inappropriate edits should not stand.
  Fictional town→fake real town→lame book→lame film. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• keep As i interpret the above comment, because we merged an article on a topic with a similar name, we must delete this one, which is on another subject entirely. ? As for the merits of this article, the festivals are sufficient, per Casliber. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, minor student film, lacks any significant coverage by third-party sources. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: unable to verify anything other than the fact that this exists. Does not meet notability, or the specific guideline for film. Besides, Knowledge is not for things made up one day by a couple of grad students. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete- Merely appearing in film festivals is not enough to establish notability in my opinion, and there's nothing in the sources beyond the fact that the film exists. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per passing GNG by having reliable, independent sources. --172.131.15.227 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Film also stars a mainstream actress from two notable shows, not a mere student, for which we have an article (Alison Brie) and content from its edit history appears to have been merged to other articles some time back. --172.162.135.112 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody opened.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to be using dynamic IPs to edit around your indefinite block, A Nobody. Deor (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why after merging content you did not originally author (thereby meaning this article’s edit history must be retained per the GFDL and that the article cannot be deleted) first to one article (that was kept per overwhelming consensus) and then to another (that was a DYK) would you only notify someone you make fun of (, , etc.) who has scrambled their password, which cannot even be emailed (as the user’s email was deactivated from Knowledge) to the user meaning that user can never again log into that account, instead of say the article’s actual creator:

• 00:49, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Jeffrey McClanahan ‎ (rm circular link) (top)
• 00:46, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Salvation, Texas (book) ‎ (redirecting to Jeffrey McClanahan, where the "Reception" section of this article has already been copied verbatim—I can see no other notable material here) (top)
• 00:40, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:A Nobody ‎ (AfD notif)
• 00:38, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 9 ‎ (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas)
• 00:35, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) N Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas ‎ (Creating deletion discussion for Salvation, Texas)
• 00:35, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Salvation, Texas ‎ (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas) (top)

It is only worthwhile to notify an account you admittedlye know to be blocked and with no way of recovering its password that you happen to have years of animosity toward rather than say the article’s actual creator? Do you think people are blind? --172.129.217.86 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I notified you because you were the creator with respect to information about the film, which constitutes all the article's current content. Looking more closely at the article's history, I see that I should also have notified MichaelQSchmidt, who expanded that content; and I will do so now. Deor (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it appears to meet the guidelines by being screened at festivals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 16 May 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. Spartaz 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Roses Tournament (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 inter-university sports competition. Receives little or no coverage outside the two competing universities and as such fails WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is un-sourced or only sourced with primary sources (such as the university own publications) and as such this article fails the WP:V policy. Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to see more sourcing for the contents, but if the competition is what's described in the article, then it would qualify as notable. Every university in the world has its own unique traditions that are well-known to its alumni, whether it's a football rivalry or an annual campuswide event. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by then it would qualify as notable - since the General notability guidelines say that :

“ ”

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article

As at the time of nomination there were exactly no refs from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there is now one from the the BBC - "BBC - North Yorkshire - Sport - White spirit". Codf1977 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I suspect that User:Mandsford probably doesn't understand how complete the lack of public interest in university sport is in England. Apart from the rivalry between Oxford and Cambridge in rowing and rugby union the level of public interest is precisely nil. As an example of this I would point out that my son came in the top 20 in UK student championships in four separate individual sports, but I (and, I'm sure, he) would find it absolutely ridiculous for anyone to write an encyclopedia article about him on that basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Also see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2008 Roses Tournament
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unless a second source can be provided to "prop up" the one independent reliable source currently in the article. University sport in the UK is completely non-notable outside the institution in question and is met only with mild apathy by those actualyl at the university. I'd certainly dispute that things like this are "well-known to alumni". At the university I work at, if one of our sports teams' matches is attended by anything other than a small handful of mildly disinterested players' girlfriends then it's an unusual occurence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that the article could do with more sourcing, but it's clear that somebody tried after the deletion was proposed and managed to find some references. More could probably be found over time. To Chris: this is slightly different from normal University sport. It is a competition over a single weekend between two Universities featuring a wide variety of sports, not just a couple of matches with no supporters. In some places it is claimed to be the largest University sport tournament in England, although from a brief look I can't find any reliable sources to back that up. If not the largest, it is certainly close though. To give you an idea of the scale, have a look at this summary video from last year: Also have a look at the number of supporters watching this rugby match: I'd hardly call that a "small handful". 144.32.176.4 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 9 May 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 15:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Boogie metal (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)

Nomination was requested by anon with the following reasoning: "A handful of general music sources (none of them heavy metal specific either) use an off-hand phrase "boogie metal". They don't give any detail on what this genre actually is, so it doesn't constitute sufficient sourcing for a separate page." Prolog (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There doesn't seem to be a single source concentrated on "boogie metal", only very brief passing mentions, so this term fails WP:N. I prodded this earlier, but it was contested by the author. Prolog (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notablity asserted.--White Shadows 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep- covered by numerous reliable sources (including Allmusic, Spin (magazine), Blender (magazine), CMJ New Music, MSNBC, The Village Voice, etc.) I've certainly seen this term in more use than groove metal. RG (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not "covered" but used, so that doesn't address the notability concern. Please see WP:NEO, especially the following: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Prolog (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment:So are you saying that CMJ New Music claiming it was influential to stoner rock and The Village Voice citing Sir Lord Baltimore being influential to it are not about the label? Again, that's way more coverage than the term "groove metal" ever received. RG (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The CMJ New Music source is a review of an Aerosmith cover album, and says "In a relatively short period of time, the burgeoning black-lunged stoner-rock underground has mercilessly strip-minded the quarries of "70's boogie-metal, from prime Blue Cheer to bottom-of-the-barrel Cactus." That's an opinion piece with a capital O, it's not at all about "boogie metal", and it doesn't really verify the claim that you used it as a source for. The Village Voice source is about Sir Lord Baltimore and mentions "stoner-boogie metal" once: "But given the scope of their influence on present-day stoner-boogie metal and the level at which they're still working..." As for groove metal, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Prolog (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- Rolling Stone also has refered to groups with the term. While their site is having problems right now with their updates and I can't show the exact articles in which they used the label, parts of the articles can be seen in this google link. RG (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete & Comment - Firstly, thanks for creating this per my request. Second, a point I'd really like to emphasise: yes, there are good sources using the term "boogie metal", but do any of those sources actually discuss the genre itself? Do any describe it's history, it's origins, the typical characterstics of the genre? Looking at the sources, all I can see is an off-hand phrase they use. There is sourcing for a phrase, but where are the sources for an actual genre? Even if you feel the genre exists, there isn't enough info to warrant a separate page. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Although the term is in use, there seems to be no coverage of it as a phenomenon, and no consistency in what it refers to. CMJ uses it to refer to some '70s hard rock groups, while the Village Voice seems to consider it a variety of stoner metal (which is a much more recent phenomenon). Still others may be treating it as a synonym of groove metal (it's unclear). This confusion is reflected in the article, which puts old hard rock groups like Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer alongside recent acts like Audioslave and Queens of the Stone Age, and even '80s glam-metallers Mötley Crüe. It's likely that the term has been coined independently on mutliple occasions. — Gwalla | Talk 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gwalla. There is no agreed definition of this genre and the bands listed have nothing in common. It seems to be a term coined inconsistently. --Raerth (talk) 17:07, 15 May 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. Arbitrarily0  19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Fresh (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)

Currently non-notable musician fails GNG and MUSICBIO. _matic 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Meets music notability #1 & #11

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.,

Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Candyo32 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The first two ("Any reprints" and "merely trivial") are explicitly excluded from evidencing notability. The third ("in rotation") is not suggested by any source. _matic 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's the page/guideline that says the are "explicitly excluded", because I don't see it? "In rotation" is suggested by reliable source Allaccess Candyo32 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Read MUSICBIO criterion 1 more closely: it says "published works in all forms except", and then lists the two clauses you quoted above. _matic 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it still meets #11, and it says at least meets one of the following. Candyo32 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which source states that the artist has been placed in national rotation by a major network? _matic 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Allaccess source states that it is in rotation on 50+ pop stations and 50+ rhythmic. Candyo32 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source;
• 50+ pop stations / 50+ rhythmic is not equivalent to national rotation by a major network. _matic 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if AllAccess is not a reliable source for the music industry, and 50+ pop and 50+ rhythmic is not equivalent to a major network then what is? What do you consider a "major network", and a reliable source for the radio industry? Candyo32 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what is meant by "major network" in the context of "national rotation" is a network on the scale of Clear Channel, Westwood One, etc. Others here are welcome to opine as to interpretation (the MUSCIBIO talk page history may also have some discussion on the matter). _matic 01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Allaccess & FMQB are the only sites that relay Mediabase stats, so there you go. According to Allaccess, stations spinning his song are through Sirius, CBS Radio, and Clear Channel through two, just to name a few. Candyo32 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Allaccess link is behind a login wall so I can't see it. However, being played at a few station that are part of a network is not the same as being put into national rotation by a network. _matic 02:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Few" = 20+ for Clear Channel networks, and that's just pop radio only. How can Clear Channel or Westwood One rotate songs when the radio stations add and rotate their own songs? The flagship owner isn't in charge of adding and rotating, the station does. And for what its worth the login is free. Candyo32 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO so far. No major label album released (Hollywood-style alleged future release dates are WP:CRYSTAL); "Spending All My Time" only released 2 weeks; no evidence of sales charting; no evidence of a national network's rotation. (I believe that MUSICBIO #11 "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" refers primarily to syndicated music feeds and centrally-controlled playlists. It does not refer to simultaneous local decisions. I'd like to see Mediabase, but I guess they don't want their own research to pass WP:V.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Allaccess/Mediabase, which requires login, the song is rotated on SiriusXM, and is #49 on Mainstream Top 40. As for sales charting, it is not released to digital download until May 11. Candyo32 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On Clear Channel rotation, meeting #11 Candyo32 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I said above, sources prove #11, per song is on SirusXM rotation and Clear Channel. Candyo32 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Article: As of May 10, Radio Disney lists the single "Spending All My Time" on their Top 30 list at http://radio.disney.go.com/music/top30.html . Larrymcp (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) larrymcp
• Delete Lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources is the biggest problem here. Radio Disney list is interesting but this is not a recognized national chart that might help meet criteria #2 of WP:MUSICBIO and also isn't sufficient evidence of regular rotation (#11). #11 works well when rotation is mentioned in an article in something like Billboard magazine but doesn't work here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Billboard magazine really? For a normal single? & Radio Disney makes third source to prove #11. Also about "sufficient evidence" AllAccess and FMQB are the only sites than the registered Mediabase that give out radio details. Candyo32 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Candyo32 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FMQB or Mediabase would be fine as a reference proving #11 but I dont see either in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I said FMQB or Allaccess, because Mediabase is a registered service. FMQB only goes 1-40 and Allaccess goes 1-50, and shows the song, where it is on rotation including SirusXM meeting #11. Adding Clear Channel and RD also, meeting 11. Candyo32 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All well and good but these will need to be added as citations to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already added them. Candyo32 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG if nothing else. At least two of the sources are reliable and offer significant coverage, so I would say that was enough to justify retaining this. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Purity Device (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 removed the {{db-band}} tag because notability is asserted by this review of one of the band's albums from Tsunami Magazine. I do not think this short review is enough to establish notability though, so have brought this article to AfD.

A Google News Archive search returns no valid results. This band appears to fail Knowledge:Notability (music). If reliable sources are found to establish notability, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 9 May 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. Arbitrarily0  19:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Energy Matters (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)

Lack of reliable, independent secondary sources. Google produces a lot of hits for unrelated magazines of the same name. Miracle Pen (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The magazine definitely existed, although reliable sources need to be found for many of the claims in the article. It's not surprising that there are few online references to this 30 year old publication and we can't infer a lack of notability from that. Pburka (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You need independent secondary sources; I don't think a student publication is going to be covered much by secondary sources (although it seems fairly professional by the standards of student publications, which is why I hesitated to nominate it at first, a month or so ago.). Miracle Pen (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There are inevitably very few independent secondary sources on the web for events dating back 30 years which are not covered in online archives, so a lower threshold of verifiability needs to be applied to information of this age. To provide an important secondary source, the article now includes the hi-res image of a letter from Buckingham Palace (surely a reliable source?) which confirms several of the statements made in the article. Guidance would be welcome from those with experience of this kind of age-related problem as to how best to provide independent online sources from the era of paper. I'd argue strongly against deletion of this article, whose subject both felt and had a significant impact upon a number of influential individuals. Andrew Bud (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no requirement for online sources, cited references to print sources are fine. However, whether they be print or online the same notability criteria applies - that the subject of the article has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - makes some bold claims but the page not only fails to meet WP:GNG but many key facts cannot be verified thus failing the policy WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The complete absence on reliable sources means that the article cannot establish its notability. The absence of independent sources also brings the entire articles verifiability into question, especially given the principle authors COI. Nuttah (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. In response to the comments in this discussion, extensive references have now been added to the article. Following the guidance from Nuttah, these are references to print copies of the original magazine (and another publication) which are in the Cambridge University Library and may be freely viewed for independent verification. This should now fully satisfy the notability requirements for this article. Andrew Bud (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm afraid you have not addressed the concerns, as of yet there is still no evidence of the independent coverage required to establish notability and provide verifiability. Nuttah (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is not correct. Article references 2 and 11 are both independent coverage. I would also argue that a letter from HRH Prince Philip from Buckingham Palace must be fairly considered independent evidence of verifiability, and also abundant evidence of notability (see WP:NMAG criterion 2). Andrew Bud (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I struck the second keep vote by AndrewBud. Only one vote per person, please. tedder (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable independent sources have been found or given to establish notability. tedder (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This magazine is at the very least a footnote in the history of energy policy and if it is thought that some points in the article are unverified or wrong, that can be put right without deleting the entry. James Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Kessler QC (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep.Useful source of information on the early views of notable politicains such as Bernard Jenkin MP and NGO advisors such as Mike Grubb. Mikedash (talk) 15:15, 15 May 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) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OmniObjectMeter (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)

Unreferenced and not notable. moɳo 03:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:29, 2 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, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete — Per nom and Mr. Chill ContinueWithCaution (talk) 02:02, 9 May 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) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Boba Fett (books) (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)

Text copied from a Star Wars wiki, can't see how it meets the notability criteria for books, it's not very famous. The Evil IP address (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. One or two of the books might be notable, but they would better be merged into the articles on their respective authors. The series is not notable. Pburka (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete this s non-important StarWarsCruft. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Boba Fett per WP:NNC. Looking at that article, there's no length-based reason that a mere stub article like this couldn't be included there. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 4 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, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of any evidence (or even assertion) of notability, and no sources. (There's not much to merge, so no point.) In fact, technically, it's a copyvio of this, because it lacks the CC-BY-SA attribution under the Wookipedia licence (so in its current state, we could speedily delete it under G12). I'll be nice and put the attribution in, and mention copyright rules to the editor who created the article. TheFeds 03:19, 9 May 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) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

William Pitcock (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 software author. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete this person is not notable, and I still believe qualifies for A7 66.93.203.152 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment noting the lack of response received, it can only re-iterate my position that this article should go. 66.93.203.152 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. The only coverage about him, personally, is a Free Software Magazine post that's neither an article or column. Pcap ping 18:03, 4 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, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete News search has only 2 hits that are him, and one is a support blog ??. I don't see evidence of notability. David V Houston (talk) 01:30, 9 May 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. Consensus from established users is that this isn't substantially sourced and this has not been refuted by the keep side Spartaz 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sober Spike (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 prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if the "soon to be" magazine article is published it would not indicate adequate notability. Jminthorne (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a big magazine that WILL be published this month. Sober Spike has also been in The Valley Chronicle, but you'd have to subscribe to it if you wanna actually open the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakemaster2000 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - While they may have enjoyed minor success, they fail WP:BAND. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The criteria, as stated on the Knowledge:Notability (music) page, is that: "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria." Sober Spike meets the first requirement listed on the page, which is: 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (Skinnie Magazine and The Daily Chronicle) whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The Skinnie article is due very soon and verifiable, and The Daily Chronicle article IS locatable with subscription to the newspaper. Must the page be deleted before the claim about their inclusion in Skinnie magazine can be verified (this month)? And when the Skinnie article is issued, surely that will be enough to keep the band on wikipedia? --Blakemaster2000 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Please be careful not to make it appear that your two "keep" comments are from different people. Jminthorne (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Two sources is not multiple. Where is the Daily Chronicle source? What is the proof of the Skinnie source? Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, two sources IS multiple.

The Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the word "multiple" is: "consisting of, including, or involving more than one." Two is more than one. Therefore, two sources should be considered multiple sources. And if you read my last post thoroughly, you will find the answers to those questions. blake (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal. There is no significant coverage IN the article so post the Daily Chronicle source and add content from it with a ref tag if it is offline so that we know that it actually exists. Second, the second article doesn't exist. Third, most users consider multiple 3 or more. Two is usually considered a couple. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• First of all... If you follow the fourth reference link, it is quite obvious that the Valley Chronicle article exists. Whether or not you want to pay $5.00 to actually view the article is your choice, but your choice does not affect it's existence. Second, I have already acknowleged that the Skinnie article does not yet exist. Third, it does not matter what most users consider multiple to be. Multiple MEANS more than one. I'm sure wikipedia goes by what a word actually means, and not what "most users" wrongly consider.

blake (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look up couple in the dictionary. Also, the Valley Chronicle is local so that doesn't show notability. And thanks very much for calling me a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, before I say anything, I apologize for that. I'm sorry.. I hope you'll forgive me.

But we're not talking about a couple, we're talking about multiple. I'm pretty sure two words can mean the same thing. And nowhere in the Knowledge:Notability (music) page does it say that it cannot be local. It says: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media." I would say that the article falls under a published newspaper article. blake (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is now a reference link to the skinnie source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakemaster2000 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think this debate should just be closed, and the tag for deletion removed. If we're going to be fair in reaching a consensus, then my argument will prevail. Sober Spike, though just barely, is notable enough to be on wikipedia... That is if we're following the criteria word for word rather than people's interpretation of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakemaster2000 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete having your name in a list (which is what the skinnie thing is) is not being the subject of a non-trivial published work. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep An ordinary list about bands in a town would be trivial. It's the list that the band is in. I wouldn't consider a list of the Top 100 bands in all of Southern California trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.232.25 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that is not what the list is. I'ts a list of 100 of the independent bands that applied to be on the list. duffbeerforme (talk)

• Umm, actually they didn't apply to be on the list. They competed against like 250 bands to be on that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.124.180 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • a quote from Skinnie Magazine - "some 500 applicants dropped their name in the hat for a chance to participate" duffbeerforme (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• As in, they played three locations in a competition against a bunch of other bands. blake (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, after applying to be in a competition they were, of the ~300 who competed, in the top 1/3. nothing special. duffbeerforme (talk)

• That is pretty special that they made it out of 200 other bands. blake (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for retention were not as strong as those for deletion. While the delete side asserted that the scope and choice of topic of the list were inappropriate, most of the keep arguments were WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, not convinced by delete !voters (how?), WP:OTHERSTUFF, etc. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of couples with British titles in their own right (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 fails WP:SAL#Lists of people. It is not clear why a list of couples meeting this very peculiar description is of interest to anybody, or why these couples are more noteworthy than the couples composed of people who hold titles not in their own right, or no titles at all. More importantly, the article provides no indication that any reliable source outside of Knowledge has ever taken an interest in this topic or composed such a list: this list is almost entirely unsourced despite containing many WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Does seem rather limited in scope and no reason to assume that this is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Why it's of interest to some people is unimportant—clearly it is, otherwise it wouldn't have been created. In any event, the nominator is right that the article does not appear to be notable. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I think our core constituents (college and high school students) could use this list. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• This does not address that it's unsourced. And how could such a list be relevant to any field of study? Knowledge is not the Who's Who.  Sandstein  18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep All the people listed have their own Knowledge articles, so are notable by Knowledge standards. A list of everyone with a title would be encyclopedic, and listing those who married others with such titles, is fine as well. Dream Focus 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  We can't really assume notability by Knowledge standers simply because they are included on Knowledge. Inclusion is not a indication of notability, we don't create articles because other articles exist. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  All nobility is notable, by Knowledge standards, and if any didn't have an article already, they could easily be given one. Dream Focus 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to border onto trivia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Knowledge, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Knowledge, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The list started to give an overview of a particular social phenomenon. Adding people with multiple honours (peerages AND titles derived from orders of knighthood) has resulted in the article becoming difficult to read and - as other users rightly remarked - bordering on trivia. It requires a good cleanup, no doubt. However, as far as the overall relevance is concerned, one may ask a very general question: 'Are peoples' lists relevant at all? What do they tell us?' And as far as unsourced information is concerned, that's a general problem in Knowledge. There are many articles with a higher amount of unsourced information here, after all this is only a list that connects existing Knowledge articles. It doesnt't make assumptions, it merely connects existing Knowledge biographies. So if anyone really doubts a particular entry (or needs a citation), it is still possible to do some research on this, by using google or the printed Who is Who. This article is, at present, a first starting point for further research, nothing more. Summing up, if you desperately wish to delete this list because its existence annoys you so much, go for it - I just don't see a reason why this should be necessary. I think there are article candidates where this is more urgent. Good cleanup and refined rules for inclusion of names yes, but deletion no. ViennaUK (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary list. Pointless list. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Szzuk, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Amusing for trivia purposes only. Joal Beal (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep trivia is in the eye of the beholder. This is a topic in which there is reasonable interest and it can be compiled accurately; 2 X 2 =4 is not OR. That is sufficient justification for a list. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, 2 X 2 = 4 is not OR, but as far as I understand such things aristocratic titulature (and whether it's derived or independent) is a bit more complicated than that and therefore does require reliable sourcing.  Sandstein  21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: I did not create the list, but I did add to it as best I could. I am not that attached to it, but none of the delete votes, to date, have yet convinced me that the list is non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  Just to add that User:Andrei Iosifovich did a great deal of work, yeoman work at that. I hope he will add his opinion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mind, but I find that position very frustrating. How are those favouring deletion ever supposed to prove it is not notable. In fairness, it is those who want to keep it who should explain why it's notable. So far, all we're getting is "I think it's interesting" and "nobility is inherently notable." First, the latter is simply false. There are many peers who don't have articles and may never have them because the only noteworthy thing about them is their peerage. More to the point, this isn't about the notability of nobles. Rather, it is about the notability of a subset of them. Can someone point to the source of notability of peers-in-their-own-right being married to one another? Where has this ever been listed or discussed in a reliable source outside of Knowledge? -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  Rms125a@hotmail.com, please consider that WP:ILIKEIT is not considered a valid argument in such discussions. What matters, in terms of policy, is that this is an unsourced, user-compiled list of mostly living people, which violates the policies WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP as well as the guideline WP:N.  Sandstein  21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The list interests me and I don't think the description is really so peculiar. Holding titles itself fulfils the notability requirement and the relationship is of public interest. If you disagree, go and delete List of fictional supercouples first before deleting the list about real people. Da Vynci (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  Very good point, thank you. Go and delete List of fictional supercouples first before deleting the list about real people! ViennaUK (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Good point too, I also gotta admit. Give credit where credit's due. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Not really, I think. See WP:WAX: Just because we have many bad articles does not mean we should keep this one.  Sandstein  21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per my response to Rms125a@hotmail.com, above. -Rrius (talk)

  I agree that "being interesting" is not a ground for writing or keeping an article on Knowledge, nor did I use that as a justification. I simply said the "no" side had not yet convinced me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Just to add re noteworthiness -- almost all the entries had articles in their own right and there were no red-links. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Question How is that relevant? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This absolutely arbitrary aggregation of facts is exactly that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 14 May 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.