Knowledge (XXG)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Copyvio Alexf 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sean Babas (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)

General notability; unreferenced BLP jsfouche ☽☾ talk 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, minimal claim to notability, lots of future plans but little to show. Hairhorn (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio from and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 24 November 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 Micromasters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Skyhopper (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)

Reliatively minor Transformers character, no assertion of notability. Macr86 (talk) 23:29, 23, November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Micromasters. Mathewignash (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles#Skyhopper. Macr86 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't a star war article. Mathewignash (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Uh.....why are you !voting "redirect" if you've already AFDed the article? ----Divebomb is not British 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete don't care if it redirects, Sadads (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Micromasters. ----Divebomb is not British 20:18, 26 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The University of Auckland Optometry Programme (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 an article about the programme; it looks to be some kind of study guide. The author admits as much in an edit summary. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Good for Wikibooks or Wikiversity, but not Knowledge (XXG). Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - this appears to be some sort of course outline. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 24 November 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. Courcelles 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Graeme Swann's Ball of the Century (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 relatively slight, short-term notability of this event in respect to the actual Ball of the Century suggests to me that this article is candidate for deletion. Arguements at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Shakib Al Hasan's Ball of the Century provide context for this kind of thing also. Essentially, not notable enough for its own article, the coverage and significance was short-lived and no where near like usurping that of the original event. Deserves short mention on Graeme Swann and perhaps on the original Warne article only. S.G. _ping! 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete The incident passed me by entirely, and I was keeping tabs on that test, and not readin the tabloids. For my money neither the ball, nor the test series were culturally significant due to other incidents and allegations surrounding the series, and the resultant lack of competition from Pakistan during the series. AbrahamCat (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. It is an example of media hype. I agree with SGGH that it deserves a mention in the Swann biography but no more. ----Jack | 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Harrias 22:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:EVENT. The delivery received a huge amount of mainstream news coverage across the cricketing world, but only for short period of time in August. The lack of follow-up and references since then show there is little reason to suspect that it will have any lasting impact or significance. Certainly should be covered in Swann's article and maybe the article on the tour, but that's probably enough. _wjemather 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Johnlp (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable event in terms of a separate article, but worthy of mention in the player article. –Moondyne 23:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/delete into Swann's article and Ball of the Century. Maybe he can reproduce this in Brisbane in a few hours time! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete and merge parts of the article into Graeme Swann. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. As an English cricket fan I remember this ball, but that doesn't make it a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. It would take a very exceptional ball bowled in very exceptional circumstances, such as Shane Warne's ball of the century (and probably no others) to make one second of play in a cricket match a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete and merge parts of the article into Graeme Swann as AA said, nothing notable enough to warrant a wiki.--Harikrishnanpv.ans (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: there can be a 'ball of the century' or a 'ball of X's career' = his best ball ever, but not 'X's ball of the century'. Was this ball so notable as to be worth including in the main Swann article? I do not think so. I do not think it should be included in the original Warne article, as it detracts from the uniqueness of what genuinely was a 'ball of the century' (and I am an English cricket fan). Shropshirechris (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rikhav-Infotech (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)

All references are from personal website and non-reliable references.

No references found in:

• News
• Books
• Scholars
• Images.

No reliable third party references. Delete and Keep per nomination. Alice.michelle16 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're only supposed to !vote one way... Then again, I'm not sure if that is a rule or a custom. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Delete Appears non notable. If reliable third party references are located, I will re-evaluate.Stormbay(talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established through reliable third party sources. Seaphoto 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Ye gods, that was hard reading. Repetitious, disjointed, and on if not over the borderline of spam, it fails for me to credibly show any notability for the company. Why do people say 'pitches for' - especially when they're not in a baseball nation but a cricketing one? Whatever the reason, it suggests spam and/or copy&paste. The references seem to fail WP:RS. The nomination is on the ground of lack of referencing - I consider the lack of notability more important. A notable subject without references can be cured. I don't think this one can. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. More generic tech-cruft from a field where every bit player seems to imagine that it rates an encyclopedia article. This business specializes in offering a variety of IT services by Outsourcing the work of companies located in diverse locations across the globe. In other words, they don't really deal with the general public under their actual name, did not originate the sorts of service they perform, and perform it to someone else's direction. Absent very unusual circumstances firms of this sort don't do anything with the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that turns them into encyclopedia subjects. Nothing here makes that case; rather, it's all about offering a bouquet of services that are innovative at their heart and yet uncompromising in the quality and work ethic they bring to any and every project.
  
  A similar bit of word salad turned up in the article beneath Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/GM Infotech. Perhaps these are generated with Markov chain text generators. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. It has some content problems but the promotional tone might be fixed through normal editing. The main problem is a lack of independent sources discussing the company; the kind of thing that would satisfy WP:CORP. Citing is the least bad thing in the article - a couple more sources in that vein could sway me to keep. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks independent coverage in third party reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Snow delete take a look at the talkpage to see how much of a joke this article is. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it - is there a Talkpages for Preservation process? Peridon (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

David Tomkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment, forgot to mention that there was a contested prod on this article here. —J04n(talk page) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I did find this , but I think the mention is too fleeting to pass WP:GNG, leaving nothing from which to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 00:14, 30 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Danwritessins (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)

Musician does not meet Knowledge (XXG) criteria for music. Google search for name nets fewer than 400 results (about 80 "unique" results). Originally I put a speedy tag but there is opposition so I'm taking it here for wider discussion. ... discospinster _talk 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Weirdly, Danwritessins -Knowledge (XXG) search results in about 3,400 pages, while Danwritessins only search results in <400. The higher number still does not support claims of notability, however. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The Knowledge (XXG) article appears to be an extension of the editor/subject's social media marketing strategy. No indication of notability per WP:BAND, many "references" are to non-reliable sources, including Knowledge (XXG). The article includes a great deal of personal opinion/original research, with no actual encyclopedic content. Note: I speedy-deleted the first version, then userfied the article when it reappeared on the editor's userpage. I see no substantive difference between this version and the speedy-deleted version. Acroterion _(talk) 20:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Autobiographical spam. & what Acroterion said. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - The guy is putting a lot of effort into his social networking blitz, and good for him. Now he should put the same amount of effort into getting a gig. WP:NOTMYSPACE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File list generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Software with no particular claim of notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete does not assert notability. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 19:10, 26 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonrise Kingdom (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 - Prod reason was: WP:CRYSTAL -- film has not even been cast yet. Excirial 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: as original prodder. ... discospinster _talk 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Not even cast. Stars in talks. Does not merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, 10:44, 25 November 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 Moved to an Rfd discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Brendan Gallagher (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)

Major junior ice hockey player that currently does not meet notability standards at WP:Notability_(sports)#Ice_hockey. Gallagher's page does not currently mention any claims to notability. When he does meet notability standards, his page can be created. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: The page does not currently mention any claims to notability because it is not an article. It is a useful redirect and should be kept per reasons #2, #3, #4, and #5 of the Reasons for not deleting redirects guidelines. Dolovis (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Close discussion Since this was redirected before it was nominated, you have to take this to Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion. I'd close it myself, but the nom should be given an explanation of the opportunity to raise this issue in a different forum. Mandsford 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 24 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette in North America (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 consists mostly of a long list of entries saying that it's rude to do this or that. It completely lacks scholarly sources, it doesn't seem to mention politeness theory (face needs, etc.) at all, and its tone is rather unencyclopedic. I'd like to see an unbiased article written from a sociological perspective, and I don't see any path from this article to that one. Bob A (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I suppose that one could make the same objections to all of the articles in Category:Etiquette lists. Etiquette, as with other aspects of culture, is certainly an encyclopedic topic, and people who consult these very general articles actually are looking for information on what's considered rude within a particular culture, rather than an explanation of the evolution of individual customs. A link to politeness theory could be inserted by editing, but it wouldn't be a large portion of an article. There's nothing to stop you from writing a better, unbiased article about North Amercian etiquette from a sociological perspective, of course, and it would be a useful supplement or replacement to this. In addition, if you see something that is inaccurate or untrue, you may edit it out without seeking approval. Mandsford 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being American, I'm not in a very good position to do this. My problem with the way this information is presented is that the tone seems unencyclopedic to the point of being POV, and it's quite hard to get a sense of how much of this is an accurate reflection of social customs in the U.S. and Canada, and how much is somebody's prescription. Another problem that I forgot to mention in the nomination is that this article tries to cover both the United States and Canada, but not Mexico, despite its title. I'm not even sure how much of it is pertinent to Canada. Bob A (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep Whether the article is good or bad, I feel there ought to be an article of some description on the subject. AbrahamCat (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd add that problems with the title of an article are the easiest to fix. Changing the tone of the writing is a little bit more of an editing task, but not insurmountable. When the topic isn't appropriate for a its own article, then the question comes up about whether the information should be placed elsewhere. Otherwise, throwing out the whole thing is a last resort. Mandsford 13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it needs sources from actual scholars and not just etiquette writers, but it's a worthwhile sociological topic. Roscelese (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that an article is bad is not a reason for deletion. This article is a valid spin-off from etiquette, just like etiquette in Japan, etiquette in Asia, etiquette in the Middle East, etiquette in Europe, etc. RJC _Contribs 02:12, 30 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Card stacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Fails WP:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. This is just the definition of a common expression. Good information on its meaning, but as such belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep This is definitely not a word that belongs in a dictionary, but an encyclopedia like this, as it is about technique that is utilized by the media and politicians (along with scam artists). I have gone ahead and added references to the article to show this. I feel that it is an extremely notable subject. Silverseren 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is much improved. I think it is now a borderline case. I'm not going to withdraw the nomination since still the article is much more about the expression than the thing. For instance there is no information on if it is effective or not, and things like that. Borock (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out the fact that the state of the article is completely irrelevant to its notability. The article could be a single line with no references, but that wouldn't change the obvious notability of the subject from the numerous references that have the possibility of being added. They do not have to be added to confirm notability, they just have to be out there to show that the subject is notable. Silverseren 19:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is more than just a definition. The article has valid content that wouldn't all fit in a simple dictionary definition. Dream Focus 18:38, 24 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeovil True (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 a notable song. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep WP:SONG says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts.....are probably notable" - this song meets that requirement. If that isn't enough, I have just added sources from the BBC and The Times, no less..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC) (article creator)
• Keep. Coverage in at least three reliable sources (two already in the article plus this) and a chart appearance seems to be enough for not only WP:NSONG but WP:GNG as well. I can understand the nomination, as none of the sources were cited when the article was nominated, but it looks like a keep now. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Chris has proved notability. GiantSnowman 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. WP:NSONG also says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm sure sure this can be expanded beyond a stub, so I'd keep the merge option open. But as it charted (just), it's definitely not something for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:17, 24 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Smyth (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unable to find coverage of this musician in any reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The closest I found to third-party coverage was this. He's clearly had a significant career, and association with several notable bands/acts/films, but try as I might I can't find substantial independent third-party coverage (unless it's all pre-internet). At a push, the Bogey Boys might pass notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete; his apparent achievements are worthless for the purposes of WP:MUSIC, in that we don't seem to be able to verify them. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. A couple of very brief mentions but not enough to write a bio from. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 29 November 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. Interesting article, shame it has to be deleted :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars galaxy (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 lacks real-wold notability as it is a derivative article of a work of fiction with no real-world coverage and written with an in-universe perspective. It doesn't have in-line references and also doesn't have reliable third-party sources. This article is mostly an indiscriminate collection of information and I believe that it doesn't meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and notability, being more in line with a fansite. It is my opinion that it meets the criteria of reasons for deletion, being a redundant content fork. Jfgslo (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons given. Bob A (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence that is a notable concept in it own right. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Normally, I would say to ship this over to "Wookiepedia", the Star Wars entertainment wiki, but it seems to be a reasonable means of navigating the many articles we seem to have about the various elements of the Star Wars franchise. I think it's fair to say that most of the Star Wars planets do not actually get real world coverage, but those articles should be nominated individually or in groups. If this is redundant to a better outline of the galaxy from which all those Star Wars paperbacks come, than it should be redirected or merged to that. Mandsford 21:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak delete I can see this possibly being reworked into something worth keeping, though what it is it could be worked into is beyond me right now. The lists cover all the planets, vehicles, characters, etc. Personally, I'd prefer the article be called World of Star Wars or something, but that's just me. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of what's already in the main series article. A mishmash of concepts that are at best redundant to other better articles, and in most other cases totally fail the WP:GNG for a lack of third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Homo Spaciens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete This is original thought, with no reliable sources that I can locate, and also fringe "science". Article was proposed for deletion with reason "Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought or a crystal ball", and PROD notice was removed by the author of the article without explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article is based upon many reliable sources which can easily be located, both in libraries and on the internet. Although it may seem not as scitific content, definitely it's space literature, well know, and reputed documented from many scientists and other authors. Please advise before its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homospaciens (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete heavy WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research, term doesn't seem to be in wide use in this sense, if online search is anything to go by. Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• This is an obectively neutral article, with no original thoughts other than the ones made from the authors mentioned. Homospaciens (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR WP:MADEUP WP:NOTESSAY WP:BALL. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the space exploration field, similar to space colonization, space settlement, and others (by the way all of these terms are published in wikipedia). I encourage its publication. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homospaciens (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. OR and OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - per all previous delete comments. Basically, Homospaciens, if you want to maintain that this is notable, you are going to have to produce many more reliable sources actually using this term in this manner. LadyofShalott 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear all, I have added three online external references (see links below) from reliable sources (articles from the Washington Post, from the European Space Agency, and from John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences) that prove that, Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the field of space exploration to explain our future evolution. Then, this is not an original thought, nor a review, or an invention, and it's been there since many years. Therefore, I encourage all editors to re-consider their position before recommend its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak neutral, leaning towards delete Having reviewed the article, as well as the new sources added, I still have some concerns. The german-language book-length reference seems a positive step in the right direction, but in general, the entire article seems like its been cobbled together from very disparate sources to advance a position which none of them individually support. Yes, I can see that the words "Homo spaciens" to describe the putative "next step in human evolution" is used occasionally, but I also cannot see where the existing sources support the lengths that this article takes it. In other words, I still don't see this as a serious topic, either from a cultural point of view, or a scientific one, and beyond just "a term some people use" I can't find any other reason to keep this article around. --96.255.208.104 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The expression "Homo spaciens" certainly exists, but this article is an original synthesis, producing a result not supported by the sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your positions regarding the fact that this article has been synthesized from the sources cited. But, I do not agree with the statement that "the result is not supported by the sources". Other space topics, such as space colonization, space exploration, and many more have been synthesized in a similiar way. Anyway, according to my point of view, and after reading all the sources cited, and being in the space industry for more than a decade, this is my best approach to give an accurate view regarding this topic. I would love to see, instead of simple criticisms, more people adding, re-writing, or giving more points of view related to this topic, and not only arguments on how the Knowledge (XXG) policies are interpreted. From my side this is it. Thank you all for your comments. Homospaciens (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Slavin (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 narrowly declined a speedy deletion request on this one, because of a possibly credible claim of importance (lots of offline refs cited). I think a few more eyes are required to determine whether or not this guy is notable enough. I suspect not.  —SMALLJIM  14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, I fail to see how he is notable. I don't believe he meets the general notability requirement. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• delete, No offense to Mr. Slavin, but someone who is known for working as anything on a film ie: extra work and stand-in work is not notable for somthing like Knowledge (XXG). When he's the next Matt Damon then he can get an article. :) FrancisDrake (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the article has been lengthened, however, I do not see anything that would enhance Slavin's notability. Having pictures taken with a celebrities and "partying" with celebrities doesn't make his notability as an actor and a filmmker any more notable. I've partied with celebrities too, does this make me notable? FrancisDrake (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. I've now done a bit of online research (all I can do in the circumstances) and I've found a few references on Google News:
  This from the UK Daily Mail newspaper, which shows him standing next to someone notable,
  this from a local paper which goes into a bit more detail about the same encounter,
  this from another local newspaper showing him standing in front of something potentially newsworthy,
  this from the same local paper which mentions him in passing,
  this from Houston Press which lists him some way down a list of the actors in a film, and
  this from The Boston Globe which lists him last in the final para.
  None of the above articles are about him, and I think it would be most unusual if the cited refs that are not available online were the only ones that showed notability . Ah - and I've just found this (see page two) from his local paper which is mostly about Hollywood East, but in which Slavin explains his desire for fame.  —SMALLJIM  20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The IMDB does not list Chuck Slavin as being in The Great Debaters, either under the film or his name, This was the film that his name is listed on at the Houston Press site. FrancisDrake (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I just don't see the sources adding up to a good claim of notability. He is not a notable actor, nor has his work with the film industry in Massachusetts led to his becoming notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:13, 28 November 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 Nomination withdrawn since principal photography has started. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Perfect (film) (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)

Film has not entered production and no notability has been established. Source provided states no official announcement has even been made. This does not meet WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It does seem that the film has entered pricipal photography, and is slated for a release during Thai Pongal. The title is aparently only "tentative", as production has yet to acquire rights to its use. The stub is in terrible shape and in drastic need of expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, 10:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Would it be appropriate then, to speedy close this as keep? BOVINEBOY2008 10:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I would think that as nominator and withdrawing, and with no dissenting opinions, that would be reasonable. I'll even see if I can add some content and additional sources. Schmidt, 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Alright, I then withdraw my nomination. I'm not exactly sure how to close it, though... BOVINEBOY2008 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Idella Moore (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 (old!) BLP, while the organisation may (debatably) be notable - I don't think that the same can be said of this individual. She appears in newsarticles occasionally, but always as the spokeswoman/founder of her organisation, and therefore is not the subject of that coverage - which fails WP:BIO Ajbpearce (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Convert to article about the organization, which it mostly is now anyway. Keep Idella Moore as a redirect to the article about the organization. JamesMLane t c 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ORG. THF (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Wood (conductor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This article is a recreation of a previously deleted CSD A7. The article is a CV (résumé) in prose form that documents the education and first steps of a young person at the very beginning of his career. The references (see comments below) mainly serve to list and/or confirm some of the concerts the subject has conducted. None of them are independent mainstream media articles. None of them are dedicated to the subject, and none are the kind of sources that assert notability.

1. Symphony Services International. Matthew Wood biography - Database site with 'pay-for' member services.. Confirms statements. Does not confer notability
2. Royal Northern College of Music: Junior Fellows in Conducting RNCM - brief mention of name only (alumnus) as 'trained' by the College. Confirms fellowship training course. Does not confer notability
3. London Symphony Orchestra: LSO Discovery Conducting Masterclass - confirms the candidate's participation in the Masterclass programme: Observation of young conductors at work with Sir Colin Davis in rehearsal with the LSO. Does not confer notability.
4. http://www.bsolive.com/upload/2009%20images/Brochure%20pdfs/BSO_NEWSEASON_WEB.pdf Bournemouth Sumphony Orch> - is the concert season programme brochure. confirms that he conducted one concert 7.30pm Wednesday December at the Lighthouse, Pool, Dorset. Does not confirm the statement. Does not confer notability
5. Barbican Centre. Classics with The Philharmonia, 27 December 2009 - Barican Centre 'What's On<" programme. Confirms having conducted one concert of the The Philharmoniat the Barbican Centre. Does not confer notability.
6. Isle of Man Today. "Great music in times of celebration". Isle of Man Newspapers (March 20, 2008 - a blog about the Isle of Man with snippets of news taken from some newspapers. Confirms that In the second half of the programme, he led Wojciech Kilar's Krzesany and Tchaikovsky's Marche Slave. The article is not about the subject. States, but does not provide proof that he is/was principal conductor for the Liverpool Philharmonic Youth Orchestra. Does not confer notability.
7. RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra. Musical Postcards Summer Lunchtime and Seven-Thirty Evening Concerts] (Summer 2010) Cannot be confirmed (not an online source).
8. University of London Symphony Orchestra. Biography of Matthew Wood a Guest Conductor. Does not confer notability.
9. Article by González, Rodrigo. "Destacados músicos animarán la temporada de la Sinfónica de Chile". La Tercera (March 11, 2009) . Blog. An extremely brief mention of him as conductor in an article dedicated to Rachel Barton, violinist, and Mahani Teave
10. Queensland Symphony Orchestra. (Annual Report 2009) p. 8 Extremely brief mention as an Australian 'emerging' artist. ) Cannot be confirmed (not an online source), as it is simply neither a ref nor a source. It's just a basic unlinked footnote.
11. University of London Symphony Orchestra. Biography of Matthew Wood a Guest Conductor.
12. Halcyon. Artists list: one name in a list of artists promoted by this casting agency. Does not confer notability. Kudpung (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice to recreation at some future time when the subject's career has developed beyond its beginning stages. While the performances can be documented, they are not indicative in themselves of notability. They were not reviewed by either the mainstream press (apart from the ones with the Halcyon ensemble in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra in The Age ) or in the specialist press, and in both reviews there was only a brief mention of him. He has not conducted any recordings either. Most of the performances result from his time as a "Young Conductor in Association" with the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra , a masterclass with the London Symphony Orchestra , and conducting the youth rather than main orchestra of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic . Having said that, a couple of points about evaluation of the sources themselves. The article from La Tercera is not on a "blog". Halcyon is a performing ensemble not a "casting agency" as stated above. See the review in the Sydney Morning Herald and this radio broadcast (scroll down to 8 pm). Every one of sources is online, or in a PDF file of printed matter posted online, and there's no need for a source to be online at all. Off-line printed material, e.g. books, journal articles, etc. are perfectly valid sources. It's just that in this case, there isn't any significant coverage of the subject's career or impact on his profession either online or off. Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Naturally print sources are more reliable than ionline sources. However, at the time this AfD was prepared, footnote #7: RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra. Musical Postcards Summer Lunchtime and Seven-Thirty Evening Concerts] (Summer 2010) was an unlinked line of text. Kudpung (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note:This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music – Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• This AfD was done with Twinkle which usually does everything. I'lll try to contact the Twinkle people.Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note:The creator was contacted five days ago with a friendly request to to address the problem of references.Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GM Infotech (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 company. All references are for directory listings, and location services that prove the company exists, but not that it's in any way notable. Has been deleted as advertising or non-notable speedily twice (once my by myself in the interest of full disclosure.) The article creator claims no connection to the company in a message to my talk page, but is the last person to friend the company (out of 4) on their Facebook page (see link at bottom of article.) They appear to just be a small startup company, half their website isn't even functional and full of Latin stand in text. I can find no news stories for the company, or reliable third party references that aren't due to the company trying to increase it's net presence. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Delete and salt per nomination. Yet another IT research, web development and consultation service company, a field where every bit player seems to imagine itself an encyclopedia subject. Entirely promotional, with an unreferenced claim to be
  
  one of the leading service providers in Mumbai for Web design, Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, Social Media and Outsourcing.....
  
  GM Infotech’s end to end enterprise solutions have helped Businesses globally to achieve their targets. The incoming business deals allows to focus on business as well as recognize strengths. GM Infotech in Indian IT industry, is fairly young business but growing rapidly and offering various services that are innovative, competitive, cost effective within client's budget and yet uncompromising on quality of work that is produced on every project individually. The Internet over this decade has changed the look and needs of every other individual and the Information technology industry of India is one of the strongest amongst developing countries that GM Infotech is looking to ride amongst the leaders which provides Services for the modern and constantly growing business with optimized solution.
  
  There needs to be some kind of topic ban that goes beyond salting. This is why. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per the detailed reasoning above.--Stormbay (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No independent third party coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Notability has not been established through independent sources. Seaphoto 18:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (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)

Advertisement & lack of notability: no reliable secondary sources or extensive coverage, 2,050 results at Google, non-existant Alexa rank. GeneralBay (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete lacks extensive indepth coverage. . LibStar (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediocre films (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)

bag of 'look at me, me, me' shite Mannafredo (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - While the tone of the nomination is a little uncharitable, I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of it. The page fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG--Korruski 12:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per Korruski. This is someone's name they've given themselves for their "studio" making films for Youtube and Myspace. I was so hoping for a list of mediocre films. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as it appears to be WP:COI --Nat682 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Monk Goes to the Carnival (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 episode of Monk (TV series) fails to met the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail to meet the specific definition of WP:IINFO#1. Previous PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (or "Transmonkify" to the Monk entertainment wiki). This is vintage 2005 Knowledge (XXG), when TV episode summaries and TV character bios were in abundance, and articles about real events and real people weren't. We've moved on. Mandsford 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, the {{wikia}} template may be useful for linking to transmonkifications from the episode index list or main article. Fæ (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to show or season, depending on whether the episode summary is useful there. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Though I support creating an article for every episode (no reason not to, IMO), it is against policy (notability) to do so. Also, the article has many formatting errors, which would be need to be fixed if by some chance it were kept. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Page would need to be totally rewritten. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghulam Mohammed v. Donald Rumsfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Fails WP:N. No Google Scholar, Books, or News Archives results. Only thirty distinct Google hits, all of them from Knowledge (XXG) and its mirrors. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- There have been a limited number of habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the captives in Bagram. It was very difficult for lawyers in the USA to learn the identities of the captives held in Bagram, but they succeeded in doing so a few times. For those who don't know, Bagram Air Base holds what has been called "the other Guantanamo" -- the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. There has been a significant amount of comment from WP:RS over those habeas petitions. Some WP:RS commented that those habeas petitions would have a very significant effect if captives held in Bagram were given access to the US court system.

  Since this article has started there have been some significant developments. A US District Court Judge in Washington ruled that most Bagram captives were not eligible to access the US court system. They ruled that only those captives who were not captured in Afghanistan, and who were taken to Afghanistan by the USA were eligible to access the US court system.

  I have no problem merging the other habeas petitions from Bagram captives into a single article, and I suggest this now. IMO the assertion that this topic is not notable is not supportable.

  For what it is worth the Grizwold article is still available online. I came across a new link to it just a couple of days ago. I would take the time to fix that reference, and add additional references to bring this article up to date -- if it weren't that a recent flood of {{xfd}} over articles or userspace pages I started simply does not allow me enough time to do so. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The article is here. It contains, as far as I can tell, no mention of this habeas corpus in its four pages. So please explain to us how this topic, Ghulam Mohammed v. Donald Rumsfeld, is notable. You state that "IMO the assertion that this topic is not notable is not supportable.", but I have shown that my searches showed a lack of evidence for your statement: it is up to you to show that it is notable, not simply to state it, nor to claim some inherited notability from the parent topic Bagram habeas corpi. Fram (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. If Geo Swan wants to merge the information from this article into a more comprehensive article that meets WP:N, I don't object, but there's no reason for hundreds of standalone articles about non-notable cases that need to be edited in parallel. THF (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and THF. IQinn (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: lack of substantive secondary source coverage on this specific writ. A wider topic (e.g. 'Jurisprudence on rights of war on terror suspects' or similar title) would almost certainly survive notability -- but would be a very different article from this one (which is mostly a large, unencyclopaedic, WP:OR table). Hrafn_Stalk 07:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The subject fails notability requirements.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 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. Courcelles 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in history (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)

To quote from the article's talk page: This article simply lists a series of problems, many of which have widely accepted solutions that the author simply does not accept. This is an "Article that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions...". Completely unsourced to boot. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Indiscriminate scrapbook notes. "The causes and legacy of the French Revolution ... are a matter of debate". Anything that's worth discussing is a matter of debate! East of Borschov 09:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This could evolve into an interesting list but its unsustainable IMO. Munin75 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. With just a little greater specificity in the title and inclusion criteria, this might be quite an interesting list. As it is, though, it is likely to end up as a dumping ground for an ever-increasing range of indiscriminate and poorly sourced fringe theories.--Korruski 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Indiscriminate list with no clear criteria for inclusion other than what each contributing editor personally believes, or wishes to suggest, is open to question. An open invitation to original research. --Escape Orbit 13:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This looks more like a list of exam questions than "unsolved problems" (Example: "What caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression?") As the article notes, "Most historical problems are not 'unsolved' per se, but they lack a worldwide, general consensus among historians and scholars, with numerous (and often contradictory) theories being proposed." Mandsford 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per all above. Besides, it was the space aliens who built the Pyramids. I thought everybody knew. = Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. -- Lolinder (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. It's a poor attempt to replicate List of unsolved problems in philosophy but, due to the differing nature of the fields, is doomed to fail. If taken to its logical conclusion this list would essentially be all of human history. LukeSurl 20:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: But if it stays, I want to add that the exact origin of the "its better than Cats" joke is also an unsolved problem in history. I have looked into it deeply to no avail.--Milowent • 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of roads in Batu Pahat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete. Nothing worth salvaging and not needed at this stage. Get rid of it to improve WP by a little increment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, just a directory, this is one of many unnecessary directories for the same town created by a single user. Corvus cornix_talk 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:35, 24 November 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. Obviously discussion about the possibility of a merge could continue on the article talk page. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Husky (commentator) (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)

Alright, call me an idiot, but I really think we ought to attempt to establish what the guideline is on these commentators. Artosis and tasteless, two more famous people (at least in korea) don't have articles, mainly because I decided that they probably didn't have enough coverage, as most of it was sort of like the coverage below. I know that there are a couple interviews, but the question becomes, is this really significant independent sourcing? This is a neutral AfD. It needs to be determined what the interpretation of GNG is for esports commentators. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep & Comment - the final ref, though published on Eurogamer features a freelance writer who's only written one article for Eurogamer. Notability would have to be established for this source. His about me page may shed some light. The NPR article is written by a programmer for NPR, and not a writer. I'd like to see established notability here as well. The PC Gamer article is written by the site's editor, so I'm satisfied there. The YouTube channel is definitely a situational source, but is fine for what it's used for (also it's his official channel, so that has some merit). The ART Tecnhica article looks fine to. I see no reason to delete. However in the spirit of establishing precedent the sources should really scrutinized, looking at both the URL and the author, as it seems like freelancer writers sneak in on these sorts of articles. --Teancum (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability isn't an issue for 1-2 article freelance writers. If their work is published by a reliable, fact-checking source, then their experience, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant. Should they make a mistake, the editorial team is expected to correct it. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't judge each writer separately unless the site's own reliablility is called into question; as far as I know, this is not the case with Eurogamer or NPR. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect: Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) doesn't give much explicit information regarding this, but I'd go with WP:ENTERTAINER for this person. Given that this person is really only know for commentary for the StarCraft series, I'd think that this is not enough for a biography. I don't see any problem mentioning him in StarCraft (series), similar to how some of the more prominent competitors are mentioned in StarCraft and Super Smash Bros. Melee.
  Regarding the sources, I agree with Jimmy. The sources overall are considered reliable because they have editorial oversight on the content, include that by freelancers. But again, the sources mainly deal with just his role as a commentator. So even if they are reliable, they don't paint a broad picture of notability. (Guyinblack25 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
  • Comment: I also see no deciding factor in the sources themselves that can adjudicate a deletion. To my knowledge, the only other roles that Husky has are to organize tournaments (with pro gamers) and upkeep a popular website dealing with Starcraft II content. Since this internet casting is a relatively new phenomenon at least in North America, perhaps it would be worthwhile to establish a separate page about game casting and relay Husky's article there. There is already a page established for pro-gamers here where many popular gamers are found in its sub sections. However, that page would not be suitable for Husky's article since it is concerned with Starcraft: Brood War and mostly Korean content. However, Husky is mentioned in the section participation outside of South Korea. Thoughts?*Cc (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This article utilizes multiple independent reliable sources that help establish enough notability for an article. Perhaps not in its state a day ago: , but after completely rewriting the article within Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines, I don't see why this article should be deleted or redirected. Artichoker 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere I don't have an objection to the content, as it is sufficiently sourced. However, the content makes for an extremely weak biographical article. The content seems to address a trend, of which Husky just happens to be an example. The sources are about video game commentating and the people who do it, they're not really about Mike Lamond. If we have an article about video game commentating, that would be the ideal place to have this content. All the other commentators who have sources but lack notability could also be mentioned there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, set aside of his StarCraft II commenting, he also published a parody song (which can even be bought on iTunes, by the way, which’s revenue will be given to charity) less than a couple of weeks ago which already has more than 3 millions visits, I guess such a number has some weight about showing his popularity, and probably more important, it proves he’s not just notorious as a video game commentor. If the article is currently weak, it should be simply be improved rather than deleted or even merged. — MetalGearLiquid 04:22, 1 December 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.  Sandstein  23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Copiun (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 enough coverage to make this company significant. No indication why they are important. Probable WP:G11. — Timneu22 · talk 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure advertising; this business offers an enterprise-class software solution for distributed PC and laptop data management, backup, storage and search.... No indication that this one is technically, historically, or culturally significant among the hundreds of similar products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make changes as there are significant differentiators that are noteworthy. For starters, 2 patents are pending: 1 for object-based deduplication where data commonality across enterprise PCs is reduced 3-5x more aggressively than current state-of-the-art block-based technologies. The second involves groundbreaking technology that enables a mobile user to communicate a backup to a corporate data center without creating a VPN or or having to have firewall ports opened. Aside from these differentiators, it's curious to me why others are deemed noteworthy, significant, or important yet they lack references, they are basic descriptions, or otherwise run-of-the-mill. My examples include Backup4all, Disco (software), Druva Software, Druva Insync, and Langmeier Backup. Comments are more than welcome. Scottb1010 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If you think they don't fit Knowledge (XXG)'s standards, please tag them accordingly. They mightn't have been noticed yet. This isn't Pokemon - we can't catch 'em all... Not at first, anyway. Personally, I am allergic to 'solutions' (I saw a van the other day with 'Cleaning Solutions' on it - I thought, OK, must mean ammonia, Flash, caustic soda... but it didn't), and heartily dislike offers (on a plate?) but if you're doing a revamp I'll hold back to give you a chance. You could do to explain what this gizmo does that others don't (and in fact what it does do for the benefit of the less cloud conscious) while you're at it. Peridon (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete basically per Ihcoyc; it doesn't seem to have gotten any attention from reliable sources, and doesn't stand out from the hundreds of others like it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 23 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Priya Amar Priya (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 as per WP:N and WP:NF - Jayanta Nath 12:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep. A Google search suggests this was a major film satisfying WP:NF. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Badge man (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 has gone uncited for four years. The article is contradictory (see one such excerpt below) and is just a mess in general.

"Other researchers have claimed that the "Badge Man" image is the sun-reflected outline of a soda pop bottle sitting atop the cement retaining wall. Marilyn Sitzman, who was standing a few yards from the retaining wall, saw a young black couple eating lunch on a bench behind that wall, and heard a soda bottle crash just after the motorcade passed by. Photos and films immediately afterwards do show a bottle sitting atop the retaining wall.{{cite}}"

(Oh, and on top of this, it was created by Badgeman (talk · contribs), if that's any indication of it's purpose...)

LiteralKa (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep/early close - I wouldn't normally offer a Google search as support for notability but the sheer weight of results here demonstrates the notability and wide usage of 'badge man' as a term with a distinct meaning within the context of the the JFK assassination. (Link). While the article is uncited, it's nevertheless reasonably well written, unambiguously defines its scope, and it is clear that significant coverage in reliable independent sources exists on this topic capable of founding an encyclopaedic article. AfD is not for cleanup. There is no case for a deletion here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep A very quick g-books search shows plenty of discussion of the topic, and is acceptable per WP:GNG which requires subjects to be verifiable, not verified. Clearly a little WP:BEFORE would have shown this AfD to be completely unnecessary. AfD is not cleanup. Jim Miller 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep One of the sillier ideas from the conspiracy theorists, but enough sources are available to meet notaability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Bryar (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. My rationale is simply that there is no evidence that she meets the specific criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER or the general guidelines at WP:N, which require multiple, non-trivial sources in third-party publications. There seems to be little, if any, material that covers her as an individual, as opposed to trivial mentions of her various roles. Canadian Paul 07:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Considering her extensive list of roles on IMDB, why should she not be included? It's not as though she was only in one episode of one TV show, she had a long history spanning 40 years. 81.89.48.128 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So where is that history properly and reliably documented outwith Knowledge (XXG), then? Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Just want to point out that normally articles on actors or actresses do not need other sources for their acting history beyond IMDB, as far as I am aware. 204.50.33.29 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per long and verifiable career in film, television, and theater that meets the caveats at WP:ENT. Not all of the results verifying her work are merely trivial, as she does receive some recognition for her stage work... as in the Los Angeles Times writing in one instance that "Claudia Bryar played Mme Ducotel with delicate sensitivity..." and in another "Claudia Bryar is absolutely splendid as Willy's loving loyal wife...", and yet another "Miss Claudia Bryar as his genteel American wife were solidly skilled and...", and another "Claudia Bryar is appealing as his wife still attractive but grown brittle...", etc. Stage reviews are more about the director and/or the story, so for an individual actress to receive even a few sentences of praise, in multiple theater reviews of multiple and various notable productions is indicative of her being worthy of note. It would be nice though to have her earlier theater career expanded. Schmidt, 07:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Re WP:NACTOR I agree with User:204.50.33.29 re the acting credits also, she has a list of acting credits going back to 1950s and an article on a character she portrayed Emma Spool and the rationale of User:MichaelQSchmidt. —Theda 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 23 November 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. Courcelles 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pawan Rama Mali (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)

Actor of doubtful notability, likely hoax. Can't find anything on IMDB or anything relevant on Google. References given are a mix of dead links and irrelevant URLs including two empty blogs: http://www.pawanrm.tk/ and http://www.pawanrm.blogspot.com/. His blogger profile calls him an engineer in India, not an actor in Hollywood. Hairhorn (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - looked for all his most notable films on IMDB, including the Hollywood ones, and couldn't find any. Given lack of evidence, verdict has to be delete. Adpete (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable obviously. Even non=notable actors are on IMDB. FrancisDrake (talk) 22:29, 24 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John Carlin co-founder Funny Garbage, Red Hot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article is supported by a single secondary source of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. As the founder of Red Hot he passes WP:CREATIVE #3 - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Over the 20 year lifetime he is regularly quoted alongside discussion of the albums, as witnessed by this Google book search. A lot of the book sources are too "snippety", but possible sources include Alt. culture: an a-to-z guide to the '90s: underground, online, and over-the-counter & The art of AIDS. His co-founding of Funny Garbage in 1996 was, according to Graphic design time line: a century of design milestones a graphic art milestone. Per WP:ACADEMIC he could pass the simple test of the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor for his achievements, but that's a weaker argument to be honest. There doesn't seem to be a selection of properly WP:RS-compliant sources to pass through WP:GNG, but there are plenty of sources in many different places to verify each bit of information. Bigger digger (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Just on the borderline for WP:AUTHOR. I wouldn't cry hard if it were merge/redirected to Red Hot Organization; I don't see much useful in the way of secondary sources independent of his role at RHO. Being "quoted" in my mind is insufficient to qualify under WP:BIO; articles need to be about you, rather than simply mentioning you, and searches for Carlin that mention biographical details like his law firm turn up empty. If kept article needs a renaming and a rewriting. THF (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 23 November 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) 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Juan Manuel López (racing driver) (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 BLP, I can't seem to locate any coverage for the race driver of this name. The extremely common name may be making this harder. That said, even if the claims in the article are true, merely competing in those races isn't a very strong claim to notability. Gigs (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Found info on him using this, this and this search on google. The search produced a ref for his Date and place of birth. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ATHLETE#Motorsports. None of the listed series are "fully professional". Perhaps some editors are confusing him with José María López? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 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. Though there's no consensus here, this is an unsourced BLP. No prejudice against recreating with sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Cox (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 children's author. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This author may not be notable in herself, but she has added to a very notable series of children's book, and her contribution is interesting and deserves to be detailed in Knowledge (XXG). It is mentioned in the German Knowledge (XXG) article on Hanni und Nanni. Hanni und Nanni is the German translation of Enid Blyton's six St Clare's Books, extended now to 27 books in German, 2 of them translated from Pamela Cox's contributions, which were bona fide attempts to fill gaps in the original series. de:Hanni und Nanni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.212.43 (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Her contribution can be documented in other articles even if we delete her article. Gigs (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • de:Hanni und Nanni interlanguage links to St. Clare's (series), notice, so that point is somewhat irrelevant to this article. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 23 November 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Phi in the Sky (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)

Declined speedy; possible NN EP because the band whose EP this is does not have a Knowledge (XXG) article. Speedy was declined because apparently this article had been speedied then restored before. I'm afraid I don't know the reliability of the one reference provided. role 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. -- role 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They were all arbitrarily deleted as A7. I completely disagree with assessment and so I've restored the articles associated with Kidneythieves. I ask that the nominator do some research on the subject and flesh out this nomination beyond some mere formality. ˉˉ╦╩ 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Grouping the relevant articles under one nomination would also be useful. As for the merits of the band, it has been covered in multiple newspaper articles home and abroad, major online publications and released albums on several notable indie labels. Though, in all fairness, the stubs did not indicate any of this. ˉˉ╦╩ 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I apologies for the way this was nominated, maybe I should have looked into the sources before I nom'd. Still I know for next time. Just to answer one of your points though I think you may be confusing me with the admin who deleted the articles under A7 to start with - when I arrived at this situation there were no articles to group, just this one. -- role 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - this EP was reviewed at AllMusic, with a link already in the article. That usually suffices for a stub album article, but my vote is "weak" because the EP was not noticed too much elsewhere. Meanwhile, putting this band and everything they did up for speedy deletion was a serious mistake and possibly a misuse of the process, because the original nominator could have easily done more research. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - and to the author: Billboard, CMJ Charting different CMJ Chart - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just changed my vote from Weak Keep to Keep based on the extra sources found by Theornamentalist. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 24 November 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) 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

American Policy Center (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)

Lacks notability; sources are self-serving and one was authored by the creator of this group. Wikipediarules2221 05:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. From early research I can be mostly sure that this is a notable topic. Article so far is written in a biased way but I'll probably work on it.TheAviator • T 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - This article about an organisation does not assert the notability of its topic. The sources currently in the article do not appear sufficient to pass WP:N, and despite TheFSaviator's apparent willingness to adopt the article above he's only made one edit to it, four days ago, which doesn't fix the sourcing or notability issues. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempted to find more research on it, although the only mention of it in reliable sources is in passing. TheAviator • T 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: notable or not, I'd be prepared to accept your good faith commitment to bringing it up to standard and withdraw my delete vote if you're able to make any progress on fixing the sourcing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yuri Pokalchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. 1 gnews hit . I also notice his Russian and Ukranian language articles are also poorly referenced. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep A notable Ukrainian writer/translator, the information is easily verifiable/expandable, see: (news about his death - published by UNIAN) (a review of his book - published by Zerkalo Nedeli) or plenty of reliable sources available in the G-News Archives. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient sourcing. (note that Google does not ordinarily transliterate for searching, and for people with a name in a non-Roman alphabet, the native language name must be search also. This can be a problem when it is not in the article, but here, it was in the linked Russian & Ukrainian Wikipedias. It would furthermore be quite unusual that a person in 4 other Wikipedias would not have an article here -- even being in 1 is cause for a very careful check to make sure the enWP article did not omit relevant material or references. There's a frequent but very unhelpful practice of translating an article into English without copying over the references.) DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

keep The Ukrainian wiki page links to pages for a couple of his books, which reinforces that fact that there is more non-English information. He is included in a list of modern Ukrainian authors by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/299.htm Francis Bond (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Calm Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Notability is not shown for this organisation/meditation centre. Its founder Paul Wilson is notable, but notability is not inherited, and none of the sources for the article shows that the centre is notable (as opposed to the founder). As a matter of fact, most of the claims about the centre in the article are unreferenced; most of the existing references are used to define concepts used in the article and don't mention the centre at all, and it does not look as if the centre itself has been the subject of third-party publications to a notable degree. bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep this centre is notable as well as its founder , and there are many sources for this in many media sites such as THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE and the independent newspaper --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The notability of Mr Wilson is not in question. Both the sources you mention here are articles about Paul Wilson. The first of these articles includes the sentence He founded his own research centre, The Calm Centre, employing a team of psychologists and an electroencephalograph (an EEG machine, which records electrical impulses in the brain) to try to measure the impact of meditation.; the second interview includes the sentence He runs a non-profit- making Calm Centre in Sydney, peopled by researchers and psychologists. That is the sum of what is said about the Calm Centre. And that goes for all the other sources in the article as well: where the centre is mentioned at all, the mentions are trivial. I have not been able to find any other reliable sources that write about the centre in more depth. This doesn't come close to meeting the "significant reliable coverage" criterion for the centre. --bonadea contributions talk 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - This article about an organisation does not assert the notability of its topic. Failing speedy delete, the article still should be deleted as not passing WP:N - none of the listed sources directly address The Calm Centre in significant detail, and the majority of the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for Paul Wilson. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, it's likely that the article was created in response to this advert on an external site. This should not be a factor when notability is discussed (if the centre is notable it can have an article), but it is still relevant. --bonadea

contributions talk 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment haha, good catch Bonadea! Adpete (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I was about to write exactly what Bondea wrote: the first ref contains one sentence about the Calm Centre, the rest of the references are about Paul Wilson with a link the Calm Centre. So there's nothing notable to say about it. A redirect to Paul Wilson (meditation teacher) would be OK though. Adpete (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not an advertising medium and there is no notability shown for this Centre. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 30 November 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. Courcelles 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Peregrina Pastorino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

I can't find any reliable sources indicating that "Peregrina Pastorino", "Pelegrina Pastorino", ""Péle" Pelegrina Pastorino", ""Péle" Peregrina Pastorino" or "Péle Pastorino" is a notable person for Argentine literature or fashion. G-Books and G-News Archive search is unhelpful. The content of the two books listed in the article is unverifiable with the help of the online tool. The article was deleted from the Spanish Knowledge (XXG). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 23 November 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. Courcelles 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Abu Obeida training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

There is no evidence that the Abu Obeida (or Abu Abaida, I have no idea why the article is at the former and not at the latter title) has received any significant attention in reliable independent sources. Tagged for notability for over a year by now. Searches return one Google Book result, no Google Scholar results, no Google News (archives) results, and 99 distinct Google results, dropping to 66 if you remove the most obvious wikipedia copies. Most of these are either unreliable sources (further Knowledge (XXG) copies), or reproductions of the DoD documents already in the article, or very passing mentions. Searches for Abu Obeida instead of Abu Abaida give slightly more results, because Abu Obeida is (part of) the name of a number of persons. No additional sources for an Abu Obeida training camp could be found though. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 23 November 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. Courcelles 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Barry Ward (politician) (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 Irish politician - local councillor. Fails WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete None of the positions he has held confer notability. Barristers and advisers to politicians aren't notable roles in themselves. The sourcing simply confirms that he is a local councillor who has been involved in a few local news stories. Nothing of significance beyond that. According to the article, he might run for parliament and might be elected, if both of those happen we can recreate the article then. Valenciano (talk) 01:13, 24 November 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 MediaWiki. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki release history (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 article; we don't need a HOWTO for MediaWiki, we just need a general overview of the product. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Failed rationale; please tell the world how a history section split out of main, summary-style, article is a HOWTO? How to what? Make a clone of Mediawiki once again? WP:HOWTO is not really about content. It's about form of presentation: "Knowledge (XXG) articles should not read like <seven things listed>". Tabular lists of software releases are not among these seven things. As for your (not "ours") opinion on the "needs": every editor is entitled to their own. Why should your opinion hold more weight than the opinions of those who wrote the article? WP:NOTPAPER says clearly: "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Knowledge (XXG) can cover, or the total amount of content <...> articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." East of Borschov 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When did I say that " opinion hold more weight than the opinions of those who wrote the article"? This page has no independent, reliable third-party sources; whatever it has right now are bad self-references as products of Wikimedia, and it is written in heavy MediaWiki jargon that makes it read like a how-to guide (stuff like "MediaWiki 1.7 requires PHP 5 (5.1 recommended). PHP 4 is no longer supported." for example). There is probably minimal content that can be salvaged from a guide to be put into the MediaWiki article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• What about WP:IINFO, item #3 ("Excessive listing of statistics")? Ipsign (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - utter failure of WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Entirely devoid of secondary sources or any particular argument for notability. Articles which are split from their parent texts still need to have a claim to notability themselves, as it isn't inherited. This is either a copy of an external set of release notes, or a hand-compiled summary of the same, and neither are appropriate here without reliable secondary sourcing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to MediaWiki. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IINFO, in particular item #3 ("Excessive listing of statistics"). IMHO isn't important enough even for merging. If I (as the user of Knowledge (XXG)) would be interested in this information, I'd go to MediaWiki page, and from there - to MediaWiki site, where this information IMHO belongs. Ipsign (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• This seems like it would be useful information to someone. If they want it, transwiki to MediaWiki and soft redirect. Otherwise, keep. I don't find the WP:IINFO arguments compelling as this is certainly not indiscriminate, and it seems like unnecessary clutter in the main article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Ipsign (talk · contribs)'s rationale. LiteralKa (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Migrate to MediaWiki.org. There are ] interwiki links for a reason. Merge to the MediaWiki article is a fine option too. Steven Walling 05:29, 29 November 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. Courcelles 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chicken Kiev Parmigiana (Karma) (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 of notability.
• Article itself claims that it was invented in 2010, so it's not likely to have become notable yet.
• Google search finds no references to this name except some Knowledge (XXG) mirrors

--Macrakis (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - The article does not argue that the topic is notable, and none of the included sources are sufficient for it to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete--based on the article (and the dearth of any outside sources for this invented recipe in a Google search) this appears to be, literally, WP:MADEUP.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does look made up. No ghits to speak of. -- Alexf 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Non-notable, looks a bit of made up too. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 15:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The article references Knowledge (XXG), the only non-Knowledge (XXG) reference is in Russian. --Confession0791 05:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with the source being in Russian. More to the point is the fact that it is about the very notable Chicken Kiev rather than the dish described in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• English Knowledge (XXG) should link to English sources. --Confession0791 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• So should Manx Knowledge (XXG) be restricted to subjects covered by reliable sources in Manx? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the concept that "English Knowledge (XXG) should link to English sources", but Delete the article on the non-notable dish. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 05:54, 25 November 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.