Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 28

< 27 July	29 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vapir Vaporizer

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

Apparatus for vaporization of substances. Possession of a US patent is not evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable. Ran a quick Google search and was unable to find reliable sources discussing the vaporizer--GroovySandwich 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no evidence of notability per WP:GNG; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Fox News source in the article appears to be marginally acceptable, but none of the others are, and I was unable to find anything in a Google search except for marketing sites. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of third-party sources, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But needs cleanup to remove unsourced conspiracy stuff. Sandstein 07:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam Virgo

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

I know we cover conspiracy theories but i am not sure this one is sufficient verified and notable to have it's own article. Some more eyes needed. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged & Redirect; subject of article appears to be notable within the context of 9/11 conspiracies; therefore any referenced information can be merged and redirected there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite perfectly valid article on a U.S. armed forces exercise. Good addition to Category:Military exercises and wargames. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the exercise is real and in no way a conspiracy theory.[1] looks like it continues to be held annually too.[2]--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in addition multiple cites in Google books if anybody has concerns about notability[3]--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are stronger.--Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey C. Hicks

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

He sounds like he was a successful student who later founded a small business, but I don't see anything in this article that asserts notability. The sources cited are all either trivial mentions of his name or self-published. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article is notable. His fund manages over $1 billion in assets and his branding agency manages one of the most tracked reality personalities currently, Kris Humphries who is engaged to one of the most Googled names on the internet, Kim Kardashian. Brpostings (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC).— Brpostings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A) He is not his branding agency, or Humphries. B) Notability is not inherited. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable businessman, no reliable coverage - article reads like a borderline advertisement. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above ... and to boot, the article has the all-too-usual WP:PEACOCK issues. For instance, the business is "focused on the development and execution of systematic trading strategies." In other words, it sells things. Sheesh. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hedge funds don't actually "sell" things. I work in the industry as a recruiter and the fund and Mr. Hicks are definitely notable. Stephen A. Cohen and James Harris Simons are both hedge fund managers that have articles on Wikipedia and I can assure you that neither are "unremarkable" businessmen. Brpostings (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC).— Brpostings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: If the subject is notable, then perhaps you can - as WP:V requires - provide links to reliable third-party magazine or newspaper articles saying so, by discussing him in the "significant detail" required. Whether other fund managers have achieved notability is beside the point; this AfD is not about them. If he should keep a low profile as the SPA below claims, that's up to him, but notability as Wikipedia defines it involves being noticed by the public at large through such sources. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 15:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am also a recruiter in the hedge fund space and believe that the article is notable. It is important to have transparency in this industry so I thank Brpostings for the data mining. Also, note that most hedge fund managers maintain a low profile. Soniceko (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC).— Soniceko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No significant coverage and few secondary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just FYI, the second SPA just created redirects for Andrey Christopher Hicks and Andrey Hicks, which will have to be deleted with the main article when the AfD closes out. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The research article and ISEF award make it notable. The article seems to be edited recently to highlight such. Ecw7283 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)— Ecw7283 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Agreed, the research article and ISEF award make it notable. Brad eerashin (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)— Brad eerashin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The ISEF award [4] was for $1000 when the subject was at high school. Not remotely sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: To quote from the relevant guideline: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify ..." for notability. The level of science awards which DO confer notability are Nobel Prizes, MacArthur Fellowships, Bancroft and Pulitzer Prizes, Fields Medals and the like. A shared "third place" high school prize isn't remotely close. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually a number of SPAs popping up to defend a bio is a sure sign of lacking notability and this one is no exception. Apparently a good high-school student. Absolutely no independent sources after that. Misses WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No citations, and no significant news coverage. Seems like an attempt to use WP as mini-resume holder for self-promotion. The “keeps” above are rather unreliable and don’t make a significant case. Not all hedge fund managers in the world are WP-notable.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meets none of the standard guidelines. Note that "managing money", even lots of it, is not inherently notable. This seems to be the confusion for many of the above SPA commentators. Appears to be a vanity page. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not fulfill Notability for either academics or businesspersons, early life section full of trivial details, not every Harvard graduate/hedge fund manager is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by Phantomsteve. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Glee Project Characters

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

Detailed information about each contestant on a reality show. Normally we don't have such pages -- the information on the main show article is enough to get the gist. Most of these people won't make it far enough to be considered notable, so this page is unnecessary. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio from the Glee Project website. Each entry is copied from the corresponding "Oxygen's Meet..." link. I'll write up a G12 tag later tonight if someone else doesn't beat me to it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as a blatant hoax. Other hoaxes by the same editor also speedied and editor blocked indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

David Sizemore

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

Looks like a hoak. There is no record of a "David Sizemore" to ever play in the Major Leagues or Minor Leagues. The picture is of Cincinnati Reds pitcher Logan Ondrusek. The external links are copied from Boone Logan's page. Adam Penale (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per CSD G3 as this is a blatant hoax. [5] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refense Technologies

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

Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Advertisement for a non-notable business that provides vulnerability and security risk management solutions for mission critical network infrastructure, and develops solutions to address security concerns with network devices. I gather that means they test routers and such.

Shot through with rosy language that tosses buzzwords around like it was Mardi Gras, but resists editing by vagueness:

focuses on vulnerability management solutions for network devices that enable enterprises to pinpoint vulnerabilities and provide actionable intelligence to mitigate the discovered deficiencies. Refense Technologies products and services enable organizations to perform a vulnerability audits based on a policy they created, or one of the many predefined polices based on best practices and recommendations within the IT security industry
a focused vulnerability & compliance management solution for network devices that enables enterprises to pinpoint vulnerabilities and provides mitigation information about the discovered deficiencies.
proactively discovers and helps correct vulnerabilities within firewalls, routers, switches and wireless access points which threaten the availability and integrity of those devices.
enables organizations to perform real time vulnerability scans utilizing predefined security policies which can be completely customized for compliance to specific policies and standards.

References are to the hometown paper, blogs, and press releases. I find nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the links are broken (and now tagged) but what's left are all primary sources, e.g., a company press release. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The company clearly hasn't assumed media coverage, because the only links I saw on both Google and Yahoo! were either affiliated with the company or a small mention (contact address on BusinessWeek). SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Jacinto Garcia

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

Non-notable composer whose article would have been deleted back in 2007 if it weren't that his music is so boring all parties involved forgot about the article. Incarnatus (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of his compositions was reviewed by the New Yorks Times on January 10, 2007. Google News Archive confirms that several orchestras have performed his works. Four notable performers hsve recorded his works. Nominator's personal opinion that his music is "boring" is utterly irrelevant and will be disregarded, I am sure, by the closing administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't matter if he wrote the most exciting music in the world, he's non-notable and that's what matters here. Incarnatus (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When major publications write about a composer and review his work, when notable orchestras perform and notable artists record his work, then that composer is notable. Such is the case here. I found a second New York Times review November 13, 2002. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references to his Allmusic biography and a review in The Guardian which I view as sufficient indication of notability in his field. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – widely covered in musical literature. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources referenced above and the subject's entry in Grove, which subscribers can read here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough well-documented sources to meet notability guidelines. →^Jog_Con← 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aieynda F.C.

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

doubtful notability, no sources, too short article Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.

--Postoronniy-13 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is an unreferenced article about a non-notable club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Courcelles 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISTAG

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

Obscure European "advisory body". No independent sources about this "body". Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or upmerge a relevant summary into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. These EU projects (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GENESIS – Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems and others in the past) are probably closest to notability en masse as a systematic distribution of funding to favoured institutions, so should possibly be covered as such rather than individual mission-statement-speak articles. In late breaking news it appears that ISTAG has concluded that there should be more of the same, with "sufficient budget allocation". Nice work if you can get it. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Framework Programmes as a whole certainly are notable and although the article doesn't show it, there must be a ton of references out there. The individual projects funded by the Framework Program are almost never notable, though (by analogy, NIH is very notable, but hardly any of the individual grants it gives are). However, as far as I can see, ISTAG is not directly related to the FPs. If a merge were the outcome of this AfD, Directorate-General for Information Society and Media (European Commission) might be a better target. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge per comments above. I don't know how relevant this program is in the grand picture, so it may be wp:undue to just dump it in the Framework article. Not notable by itself, failing WP:GNG. The PR person creating these should be encouraged to create a table in some notable article, instead of these mission-speak stubs. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems just an advisory board for the larger org. I worked a bit merging a few of the defunct research projects into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development but there is much more to do than I have time right now. I started doing prose, but maybe a table might be better if it all becomes too boiler plate for each project. This is not a project but an advisory group that seems to have survived into the seventh round, so more likely to be notable than projects that came and went. I cannot always follow the newspeak to determine which orgs do what, however. W Nowicki (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axentis

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

This one just deserves a wide audience. Unambiguous advertisement for a software provider of on-demand, enterprise governance, risk and compliance (GRC) management solutions. But now we know why these "management solutions" are described in the vaguest possible terms. This one says too much, and is interesting:

The company’s flagship product, AXENTIS Enterprise, enables customers to implement risk-driven compliance programs that incorporate all Elements of an Effective Compliance and Ethics program as defined by the U.S. Sentencing Commission and Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

<boggle> Software to pre-emptively keep businessmen from doing anything that will enhance their sentence when convicted in a U.S. federal court. God bless America!

This just might be the sort of story that is of interest to real news media, but is the sort of thing that the US media tends to avoid. The current article is referenced only to routine analyst reports and dead links, and I see nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:PROMOTION WP:NONSENSE. Msnicki (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't find any notable sources on both Google and Yahoo!, Wikipedia is not a hosting service because that's what GoDaddy is for instead. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinaxis

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

Article re-created after speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. AfD for a hard precedent.

Another non-notable provider of supply chain management solutions. Unambiguous advertisement and intentionally vague sales patter:

offers an on-demand supply chain response management service for demand-supply planning, monitoring, and collaborative response
product addresses functional areas including sales and operations planning (S&OP), demand management, supply management, supply chain risk management, supply chain visibility, and lean manufacturing.

References are to trade award coverage in the hometown paper, a sales brochure white paper, unavailable, apparently hosted at a trade website, blogs, and press releases. I find no better. Recommend protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nom. Clearly presented as spam; no encyclopaedic content about the company itself. No evidence of notbiliy found. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as commercial spam for an amorphous "solutions" product. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media mentions. I didn't see anything notable (aside from the company's website) on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS (the listed "sources" don't appear convincing for notability). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that most of the work on the article has been done from a brand new WP:SPA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Knowledge

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

Unverifiable. The reference consists of a broken link (not even the domain exists anymore), and I could find no reference that something like the "Library Microcomputer Hall of Fame" or the "Common Knowledge" itself ever existed. Brower Murphy is only mentioned in connection with the Library Corporation. Accordingly, the article has remained a stub since it was copied from the Open Access article 5 years ago. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found the website reference archived here. [6] It reveals no more information than contained in the article, except that whatever Common Knowledge was, it failed. It also makes it clear that this is just a "Hall Of Fame" page on this particular site, not a record of some more significant institution. I can find almost no other reference to the project at all, outside of the two Wikipedia articles. Google Books returns two results referring to this subject, but I think one is an Italian translation of the Wikipedia articles. The other, here [7], could very well be promising, and gives us the first hint of what Common Knowledge actually is; a non-profit organization. But it's just a newsletter, and the mention may be trivial (fulltext is not available, so it's hard to tell.) With that the only possible source to give any useful information about the subject, and no other mentions anywhere I can find, I doubt that it is possible to demonstrate notability. gnfnrf (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Bueno

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

Contested PROD. Subject has never played in a competitive, first-team match for a professional club. – Pee Jay 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of sources to meet WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league and therefore fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and also not even confirmed as signed for Liverpool, yet Zanoni (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstone Technology

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

"Solution"-speak article about another software company focusing on loan origination, internet and mobile banking and online financial management solutions to financial institutions. Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Only references are to an internal site and to a press release announcing the signing of a contract. I see nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

On checking, I've got to agree with the nominator wholeheartedly. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Google searching turns up nothing beyond the subject's own press releases and some trivial listings. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of third-party sources, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad Hamahang

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this musician under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Because of the language barrier, it is possible that I've missed sources (perhaps particularly in Persian), despite attempts to find such sources, so, as always, additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above {{find sources}} links, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so this subject does not appear to comply with the general notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled religious predictions

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

This page has contained a mishmash of random "unfulfilled" predictions for years now, with no evidence of improvement. I filed the first nomination a year and a half ago, because the page (1) arbitrarily consists almost exclusively of Christian predictions in the last 200 years; (2) treats significant prophetic failures as if they were no more notable than the daily utterances of Benny Hinn; (3) gives no demarcation guideline so that the equal representation of televangelists and actual religious leaders is all but invited and (4) there is no reason in the world that this particular form of failed prediction is any more noteworthy or encyclopedic than the dozens of other possibilities. I will not participate in this discussion, since I've had my say twice now. Read the article, see its history and ask yourself whether there really is any reason to believe that a worthwhile listing of unfulfilled religious prophecies will come from this. Phiwum (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nicely sourced list of in-links for notable events and individuals. Would we be having this discussion if the title was List of unfulfilled religious predictions? Probably not. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep though possibly rename to "list of unfulfilled religious predictions" per carrite. This list does not fail any part of WP:LIST, it has descriminate inclusion criteria, is of a notable topic, and is not a trivial intersection of other categories. to address the nominators points: 1) not arbitrarily, it seems those are the predictions for which the best sources exist. 2) This is an NPOV matter, we cannot use in-dogma importance as a criteria because everyone will say their prophet is the best prophet. 3) This is also an NPOV matter. We report on what has been reported on, not The Truth, if a televangelist gets as much attention in popular culture he is to be treated equally. 4) You are entirely correct, that is a reason to make List of failed technological predictions not delete this list. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep might need a rename to keep it discriminate. Do cults count? Do rumors started by random believers count? Is it only mainstream accredited religious figures in mainstream religions (whatever that means)? There are issues here. But I see more potential here than problems. Work it out. Dzlife (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a prediction is covered in a reliable source, it belongs here. If it is just Joe on his blog, nope. Ma^t_chups 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Like previously mentioned, this seems like a rather vague title. There's plenty of valid, verifiable information to be had here, but there could be a lot of grey area regarding what constitutes a real "religious prediction", and by extension what a real "religion" is. However, I feel it would be better to clarify and improve the article rather than do away with it entirely. →^Jog_Con← 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sankhya Technologies

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

Unambiguous advertisement for another non-notable business that offers a range of business management solutions and consulting services. References are to petty trade awards and memberships in industry consortiums. I find nothing better. Article re-created after speedy deletion for failure to show minimal importance. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

delete as per proposer. zero evidence of notability in any of the references. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, none of which were on both Yahoo! and Google aside from the company's website. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SXC Health Solutions

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

Contested proposed deletion. Article is about a behind the scenes business that manages prescription drug benefits for employers. Serious neutrality issues here; according to the article, this business has moved from one success to another.

Business notability is not established by the article's references. Most are to internal sources. Others are to Top 100 lists, directories, employee newsletters, and press release announcements of routine acquisitions. I find similar on Google News, but nothing that suggests that this business has had a significant effect on history, technology, or culture. Closest thing that comes to significant neutral coverage is this top 10 list from a tech stock newsletter. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete - I do not feel that notability has been adequately established in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a publicly traded company that has been the subject of significant third party coverage for over a decade, this company easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The company's stock performance along has been the subject of scores of third party publications. Finding secondary sources for companies like these is not as easy as it is for one that makes durable consumer goods, but in this case there is a significant amount of nontrivial coverage. Tone issues are handled by fixing the article, not deleting it. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is blatant ~~self~~ promotion. the sources are not neutral and not serious. one of them is a pdf of the university of toledo's employee benefits newsletter which announcing that they're switching to this company for prescription fulfillment: how could that conceivably be relevant to anything? none of these sources could be used to rewrite this article to satisfy any of the guidelines it violates. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you consider the article self promotion? VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

point taken. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the same reasons the article was denied a proposed deletion request one year ago when the same user proposed deletion (and the result was keep). The sources aren't intentionally promoting the company, they are not affiliated with the company (some were removed a year ago,). The pdf shows that the University of Toledo considers the company to be relevant (services are used by notable institutions). Millions of Americans deal with SXC on a regular basis. The article continues to get attention (views). Since the last time it was proposed for deletion (and kept) the company has grown even larger due to another acquisition that gave it a foothold in a whole other market (specialty pharmacy) and added more patients. The company's services are widely used (a Pharmaceutical Care Management Association study in 2009 said that electronic prescription will make up 75% of all by 2014 compared to 15% in 2006). Agree with VQuakr that any problems with the company article stem not from SXC's irrelevance but from tone issues. A lot of Pharmacy Benefit Industry operations happen 'behind the scenes', that doesn't make it insignificant; it is a vital component of the health industry. Also, it's listed on 2 major indices, the TSX and Nasdaq.Grmike (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

New source showing notability - The Globe and Mail: Cashing in on the U.S. drug craze Globe and mail calls it "a player to be reckoned with in the U.S. health care market" and considers it "a rags to riches story" (one of the reasons it garnered so much attention a couple years ago).Grmike (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Comment. I seldom re-nominate things that have been through full discussions once. The name did strike me as vaguely familiar when I found it. For some reason, it did not pick up on the older discussion, and it was not noted on the talk page either that I saw. If you can point me in its direction I will withdraw this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was a PROD, not a deletion discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on, then. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what does this mean? edit from the last time you proposed deletion there was a discussion but I'm not sure how to find the archives.Grmike (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

It means that I indeed proposed the article for deletion under the proposed deletion process. Someone else denied the proposed deletion. In that case, the next step is to move to articles for deletion, which is what this discussion is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look over the information about them at Reuters. A simple click of the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD will show their actions get covered as only a notable company would. The company makes a billion dollars a year, and gets coverage for its various actions and performance, is obviously notable. Dream Focus 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Law, University of Sindh, Metha Ram Hostel Building, Hyderabad

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

Non-notable branch of the University of Sindh. Per general consensus, individual degree programs of schools are not inherently notable. I had proposed to merge this article to the University of Sindh article, but on inspection, I find there is not enough verifiable information to merge. Even the institute's own website is essentially devoid of information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG. If properly sourced information is found, it should be added to the University of Sindh article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education consensus as stated by nom. — Satori Son 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education actually says, "separate articles on law schools and medical schools are being kept." Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have no prejudice to recreation if and when the subject meets the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable links on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. One author blanked the page. v/r - T P 20:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lynn

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

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

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

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

autobiography by schoolboy. No indication of WP:notability. References given mostly do not mention him. One reference has his name on the caption of a photo. noq (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noq has already tried to get this article deleted and has continuously been bothering me about multiple articles that admins have found have nothing wrong, including this one earlier today. Im fed up being victimised by Noq. Keep article as it is well progressed with plenty of references and Noq if you knew what you were looking for then you would see that i am mentioned. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I can see now, Noq seems to be causing trouble for the user EastBelfastBoy as he seems determined to get rid of his articles. Like I said earlier today in my other statement when Noq tried to delete the article, it has plenty of references and I believe that the article is reliable and honest and should be kept. Noq says he doesn't appear but he does on Wellington's Website and his play and school is mentioned on DanceUnited site. On Connswater Greenway if you click Gallery he is in a section on that page aswell. Everything on this page has a reference to show it is truthful and able to be verifyed. PleasurelandBelfast (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly and obviously does not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ At the start it says Christopher Lynn was face of Connswater Greenway 2007 and on the reference it takes you to the website and gallery which shows that Christopher was face, Wellington College Website shows under science that Christopher did take part and represent the school. Over the halfpenny bridge is mentioned on DanceUnited website multiple times if you look further through it and it says Elmgrove took part and was previously on the Elmgrove website too. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Note: Struck !vote as a repeat. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EastBelfastBoy's citations are to website homepages that don't even mention the article subject. Of all 8 citations, one has the subject's name and it is only a mere mention in a picture caption. Subject grossly fails WP:GNG and User:Noq is spot on. User:PleasurelandBelfast is likily strongly related to and has a WP:COI with User:EastBelfastBoy.--v/r - T P 16:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know PleasureLandBelfast, just because a user feels that an article has a right doesn't mean the users know each other, that is like saying Noq and Satori Son know each other, which im sure they don't. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you are telling the truth, but just to be sure I have filed a Checkuser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EastBelfastBoy. — Satori Son 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete good lord, it is quite clear that this fails wp:gng. even leaving alone the state of the references, which is poor, the list of films fails wp:crystalball in a peculiar manner, in that not only are the release dates of the films 75% in the future, but they're already listed as "cancelled". Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to add that hasn't been said above, I'm almost surprised this hasn't been speedy-ed. U-Mos (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The only possible claim of notability is throwing £23m over a bridge, but I suspect it's something symbolic such as Monopoly money - the cited source makes no explicit mention. No indication that Lynn was anything other than peripherally involved in the grant. So with effectively no claim to notability the article can be deleted immediately.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per failed verification of claims in the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YEAH BITCHES LETS SPEEDY DELETE WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO— Preceding unsigned comment added by EastBelfastBoy (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 19:57,Being one of four kids in a photo of a local paper 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete. "Claim" to notability is 1) being in a photo with three other kids a local paper throwing pretend money, and 2) a role in a production drawing children from local schools where he's not mentioned in any coverage. That's not even worth a deletion discussion. It's a shame that EastBelfastBoy has chosen to develop a persecution complex, because he might have become a valued contributor had he listened to constructive advice when it was offered. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Edison (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cherry

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

Very detailed bio (likely WP:AUTOBIO) of an almost-NFL player (despite what the article claims, the NFL link indicates that he never actually played in the NFL) and music video director/producer who has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article states he played for the Bengals in the last game of the 2004 season and "registered three receptions." Looking at his NFL.com gamelog,[8] it appears he may have played in game #17 against the Eagles on 1/2/04, but the stats are all zero. — Satori Son 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing much about the finer points of NFL statistics, or the accuracy of the stats on NFL.com, if he made it on the field, surely the G column for Games would be 1, not zero? The gamebook lists him as "not active". Databasefootball and pro-football-reference are also blank.The-Pope (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY. While the article does contain assertions of notability that would meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, I have not yet been able to verify those assertions with WP:Reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect Tony’s research and opinion below, I’m going to stick with a “delete” opinion on this one. Normally, the presumption of notability we give athletes under Wikipedia: Notability (sports) would be sufficient for a “weak keep”, but the discovered falsehoods in, and blatantly promotional nature of, this article cause me to be more strict in my evaluation. I’m going to rely on the overarching standards of the WP:GNG, which requires that the person has “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” That is clearly not the case here, whether or not he actually played in one NFL game or not. Thus, it is not going to be possible to write a complete encyclopedia article that meets the standards of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ He is a former NFL player. The article needs a lot of work and may need to be chopped down. I do not believe he ever made an NFL reception. Some of the career details are not readily available in most sources. However, according to this some of the extra detail in the article may be true. However, A google search with the following term "Matt Cherry" site:www.baltimoresun.com comes up empty, which is alarming to me. The question is whether kffl.com is a WP:RS. this salary info backs up 2004 roster status. We have to keep an player who actually played in an NFL game by convention regardless of whether he accumulated stats. I am surprise I can not find more transaction articles, but did find this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not contest removal of all post NFL career content unless it can be sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this I have removed the 3 reception claim.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most sports require you to actually play in the top level league to qualify under WP:NSPORTS. Surely, with the huge team lists (Isn't it 60-80 players?) for NFL teams, that should apply too? The game log said that he is an "not active" player - not even an unused substitute, let alone actually getting on the field. NSPORTS says "Have appeared in at least one game". Are we correct in reading "appeared" as "played on field" not just "suited up and sat on the sideline"? Given the false reception info, I'm getting the WP:DUCK feeling that this is just a big self-promotion of someone who almost made it, but didn't. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought he dressed and played special teams or something without making any catches or tackles. Do you have reason to believe he did not suit up for the one game he is credited for?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the usage in NFL terminology, but common English language usage would indicate that a player listed as "not active" on the official gamebook means that he wasn't actually on the field - or does it mean something else in the NFL? The-Pope (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You are correct. I am changing my vote to delete without prejudice to recreation if there is future evidence from WP:RS of him having played in professional games in either the Canadian Football League or possibly the NFL Europe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to article that he was on practice squad only in CFL. Didnt find evidence he ever played. NSPORTS doesnt consider NFL Europe notable. As further reassurance that he probably never played in the NFL, a special teams player like Kassim Osgood has gamelogs listed at pro-football-reference.com even though he didnt catch a pass in those games and usually only played special times. I would expect Cherry to have similar entries if he ever played. —Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleteI think we usually interpret the rule to mean the player must actually appear on the field in a regular season game, not just be present, though I think we've generally consider that even a few minutes is enough (just as it is for a letter on college teams). From the article, he hasn't done what is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS#American football/Canadian football which says player must "Have appeared in at least one game". No evidence he ever played in an NFL/CFL/AFL game. Fails WP:GNG by lacking signficant coverage in multiple independent resources. Text on his movie career appears to be solely from IMDB, which is not considered reliable per WP:RS/IMDB. —Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real reliable, trustworthy sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish his notability. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Parker (astrologer)

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

Poor notability, no information that is not on husband's page at Derek Parker MakeSense64 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that comparison of the two pages clearly shows that the above statement is fallacious. Derek Parker (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this biography subject is one of the best known contemporary astrologers in the world. The book she co-authored is one of the best selling popular astrology books in the world. She was a President of the Faculty of Astrological Studies, and remains a Patron. She has apeared on TV shows and in mainstream media regularly. She is clearly notable. Zac Δ talk 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Even if you find them, point 6 and 7 of the specifics on WP:ACADEMIC make clear that being the head of institutes for pseudoscience or having written widely popular books on pseudoscience, does in itself not satisfy notability criteria. If academics cannot be notable for such pseudoscientific activities, then do we put the bar lower for non-academics? That would discriminate against academics.

So, in this case notability has to come from WP:BIO or WP:GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For other publications by Julia Parker, please see note below. Derek Parker (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 - can Zac or someone point out which book is being referred to? Is it this one? I note that its Amazon rank is over 5.5 million which is extremely low. Or am I not looking at things right (such as it being a 1971 book)?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 - is the "Faculty of Astrological Studies" actually a notable institution? I can't find much beyond circular references, so it is difficult for me to assess.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The Faculty of Astrological Studies is a teaching body which holds well supervised examinations.[reply]

According to the article the bestseller was this one: [9] , with a pagerank over 800000. A newer version from 1990 seems to be this one [10] , page rank over 1.5 million. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case, delete. All the article seems to demonstrate is that Julia Parker is a co-author of books with no much impact.~~--A bit iffy (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to unsure. I feel a bit out of my depth here as I feel I don't have enough grasp of the astrology community to gauge whether Julia Parker is sufficiently noteworthy, and I don't have the inclination to try to understand the issues involved.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to determine notability is whether she meets the general notability guideline. If so, that trumps everything else immediately and is an automatic keep. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A book from 1990 probably achieved its peak well before Amazon came to be - and if Amazon came to be in the 1990s, it wouldn't have peaked during the 2000s. Amazon page rank is thus expected to be quite low as newer books with newer ideas take the forefront. Also, astrology is not as popular in the "Books" category as, say, novels. CycloneGU (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should perhaps be pointed out that Julia Parker has also written or co-written books on travel, health, mythology, the theatre, dream interpretation,physiognomy and the architectural history of Sydney. She has also published two novels, both of which have gone into two editions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Parker (talk • contribs)

Are these other books of significance in some way? --A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to New Society, vol 23 (published by University of Michigan, 1973) the first edition of The Compleat Astrologer book sold over a million copies (see here) That's just one edition of one of her titles Zac Δ talk 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating editor has filed a COI dispute at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI on astrology pages that is not going in his favour. Per analysis there, it is being determined that this is a WP:COI-related nomination. He has a wish to remove western astrology articles from Wikipedia as a vendetta against a site that banished him. May have nothing to do with this AfD, but I feel it's worth noting for the closing administrator. I was prepared to speedy close this myself as a WP:POINT nom. but A bit iffy has voted delete, so I will let it run its course. ~~I remain neutral.~~ As for my vote: keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh dear, this is going to take me some time to understand. I hope to respond again in a few hours.--A bit iffy (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I merely included it for the sake of disclosure. CycloneGU (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My filing a COIN on a couple editors does not make this article (and its subject) any better or worse than it is. Has tags (not by me) for almost a year, and a citation-needed tag since 2007. Other than a list of books she co-authored there is not much in this article. If one of the books sold a million copies in 1970, then that may make the book notable, but does that automatically mean this co-author is also notable? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts etc. The ref http://www.astrologer.com/live/astrologers/parker.htm doesn't work. I assume it's just link rot. However, I can't find any mention of the book on that astrologer.com, and there's only a fleeting mention of Jlia Parker in Google's cache here.

I've not found a single review in a mainstream publication (e.g. New York Times, London Review of Books) on any Julia Parker book on any subject. This suggests non-notability of Julia Parker's writings.

The ISBN doesn't exist as far as I can tell. I have little grasp of ISBNs, so I don't know whether (a) I'm not looking things up correctly, or (b) whether the quoted ISBN is malformed, or (c) whether the book is old. Can someone advise, please?

I see that the 1990 version has an Amazon rank of around 100,000. Along with User:CycloneGU's point about it not being a novel, this suggests some notability for the book. However, I don't think a co-author can just inherit notability.

Re "conflict of interest" assertion and ANI complaint: tl;dr. In a way I suppose these matters aren't relevant to whether Julia Parker merits an article, and I still haven't come across a compelling reason why there should an article on her.

So I'm sticking with my delete recommendation for now. I'm happy though to change my mind (as I have done in past AFD discussions) if the necessary evidence is presented.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it doesn't matter who nominated the AfD. The article is judged on its own merits. Here is an interesting example of an AfD that got deleted despite being nominated by a banned editor: [11]

MakeSense64 (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you bring this up. Are you saying you are going to be banned or blocked soon? CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page clearly needs editing, citation and expansion. I don't believe using Amazon's 'flavour of the hour' on selected titles is a fair way to judge a best-selling author of at least 31 books published by well known publishers such as Dorling Kindersley (London WC2) over 40 years.

Julia Parker's biography page has been on Wikipedia since 2005.
Paul Kurtz in Skeptical Odysseys, Prometheus Books (2001) p.192 writes "Julia and Derek Parker, The Complete Astrologer (1985), which sold over a million copies in ten languages. The first is a former President of the British Astrological Association" [12] Kurtz is making the point that the Parkers are notable.
Julia Parker is better known of the couple as an astrologer which is confirmed by her presidency of an association established in 1958. While Derek is better known as a broadcaster. Robert Currey talk 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Julia Parker's biography page has been on Wikipedia since 2005 is not a reason to keep the article as much as the other two. CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of co-authorship I should make it clear that I am not an astrologer and indeed have written one book (The Question of Astrology (1971) which includes criticism of the subject; my part as co-author was in the areas of history and social commentary. [Derek Parker] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Parker (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand the suggestion that there is no online reference - there is plenty. Try this search in Google books: Julia Parker or this Compleat Astrologer or this New Compleat Astrologer. I've added a few references today - there are plenty more to add if someone else has the time and inclination; although I feel every necessary point is now sufficiently demonstrated by independent sources. The guidance on Proposed deletion requests say they should be made on articles that are uncontroversially meeting the criteria for deletion. The only valid reason proposed for this is that there is a failure to meet the notability criteria, but it's a no-brainer that's not the case - this isn't worthy of being called a controversial matter, let alone an uncontroversial one.

To Derek Parker I would request that you complete the missing ISBN numbers for the list of published works. Also, is it possible for you to submit a free-to-reuse and redistribute photograph of Julia Parker on Wikimedia Commons or else a copyright-free illustration of the Compleat Astrologer book cover which could be included in the content of this page? (Or some other graphical element which would add a little more interest to the page?) If you can, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll come back and add the code which shows the photograph/illustraion on this page Zac Δ talk 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I can't see there is any reason to tag it for deletion. Parker's list of publications is surely long enough to suggest she is notable. Please see the British Library catalogue for a list of her books held by the library, some with her husband, Derek. I think this should count as a reasonable and objective record of her publishing history.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox Scripting Language

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

Non-notable computer software project: no significant indpendent references found. The sole (primary) reference in the article states "I began learning Ruby at the beginning of 2011 and decided I would attempt to create my own language structurally similar to that particular language". While the achievement is highly commendable, it does not meet inclusion criteria. Two authors (including myself) tagged the article for notability concerns so that the author could address them, but the tag was removed each time without doing so. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability - probably because no-one is using it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is a sourceforge project (there are over 300000 of them), but that seems to be where the notability ends. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Google searching suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete this article if you want. It's a brand new language anyway. I literally wrote it a little less than four months ago. Of course I won't have any references other than myself. Since the article doesn't meet your standards, just delete it. I have already saved the Wiki markup language in case I do find a reference somewhere in the next several years. I appreciate the fact that my article is being taken into consideration. I'm only twenty years old. Do you seriously think I am going to attempt at self-promotion via a web-based encyclopedia? Thanks anyway. At least I learned cool WikiML, right? Later. Iconoclazt (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Iconoclazt[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TENSIXTIES

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

Fails WP:BAND CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources cited are either blogs or self-promotion or press-release oriented. Not sufficient independent coverage. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was based upon lack of signifigant coverage required by the general notability guideline. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Grimley

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

Still unnotable. Huh direction (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Fails WP:N.--Xyz or die (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "fails to advance an argument for deletion". I don't think this should have been relisted under (1) speedy keep criteria criteria #1, (2) WP:BURO (extending an AfD discussion because we "have to"), plus, (3) the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence. The recent comment added after the relisting likewise cannot be reduced by the force of reason, so is not a !vote. I'm no fan of articles without references meanwhile I see 47,000 Google hits—at least the nominator should fully prepare the discussion if the rest of us must spend our time looking at the issues, and the admins have a work load added, please. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your frustration about the nomination, a speedy keep per your argument is no longer valid as soon as the first real delete !votes come in. As such, you should probably give a reason concerning the notability of this article if you want your !vote to count for anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several good news sources online, some of which are reliable sources, so the sourcing could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion, and in fact, is a reason to keep the article. Rescue it. FWIW, I don't see the harm in a re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that I see with those sources is that, although a bunch are certainly reliable, they don't really come close to significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the call for speedy keep, (1) nominator advanced an argument for deletion, "Still unnotable", weak argument by itself (but supported by the first afd) but talks to the basic justification of inclusion. (2) I can't see how WP:BURO justifys a speedy keep. If anything the lack of anyone objecting to a proposed deletion implies support, not opposition to deleteion. (3) "the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence." Yes, their lack of interest in maintaining this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing no coverage beyond 'mere mentions'. Certainly that's all the seems to be cited in the article, and in the News-WP:GOOGLEHITS that Bearian is citing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search engines found several people with same name, none of which is notable.--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insemtives

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources (none of the external links that are independent even mention this project). Does not meeet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deliberately uninformative gobbledygook: The project aims at producing methodologies, methods and tools that enable the massive creation and feasible management of semantic content in order to facilitate the world-wide uptake of semantic technologies. The availability of a critical mass of useful machine-understandable data and the natural limitations of automation in semantic content creation-related tasks are hampering the worldwide uptake of semantic technologies. Technologies and applications are not designed to provide incentives and motivation for users to engage in manually creating semantic content or extending and revising existing one. "Weaving the Semantic Web requires that humans contribute their labor and judgment for creating, extending, and updating formal knowledge structures. Hiding such tasks behind online multiplayer games presents the tasks as fun and intellectually challenging entertainment". Whatever the merits of the underlying project, this kind of writing is not calculated to inform, and as such no amount of editing could fix this. What exactly are they trying to do? Sounds like they want to program a computer to produce Barrens chat. Linguistic performances like this are the typed equivalent of a mountebank's handwaving. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, not deliberately unimformative, but merely the normal sort of pr-based writing. It attempts to be informative, after its fashion, though it certainly is non-encyclopedic. "Deliberately uninformative" would mean a deliberate attempt to hide information. Generally such writing can be condensed or rewritten into English. Incorrect style of an article is not an argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it means something, maybe somebody can explain it in English in a way that makes it sound worthwhile. What it sounds like to me is that the project involves logging player chat and interactions in an online game in order to create a body of "semantic content". Anybody who has ever experienced global chat channels in online games knows this to be a fool's errand. And Americans think their government wastes money.... Of course, it might be saying something else entirely, but that's because this is indeed written in patent nonsense. Not even Chuck Norris could make sense of this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough notable mentions. When I performed both a Yahoo! and Google search, all I found wasa PRWeb mention here and Facebook and Twitter link. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This time, the salt shaker will be applied Courcelles 01:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuttro

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

I closed a prior AFD as delete. Now recreated, see prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuttro. Does not appear substantively improved or different from prior page. Bringing here for community assessment. — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been a little bit of sourcing added since the original article, but it still seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I attempted to counsel the article creator on how to establish notability prior to their restoring the article. I also suggested they should seek a review of the "new" article prior to restoring it to article space. Unfortunately it looks like they essentially just moved the article back to mainspace without substantial improvements or seeking a peer review. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, the guys are collecting material to give it to me. Be patience please Mroxidizer1 (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer1[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not ideal, but has some notability per WP:NMUSIC. The Brutal Noise Music Co. piece looks like a distributor or label for the band, so that source isn't independent. The other two look alright as they do go in-depth about the band and provide independent coverage. The creator has had 5 days to collect sources and no changes have been made to the page since the above message was left. I will put this page on watch, in the case the article creator is able to provide any more in the meantime. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sourcing aside, the grammar is atrocious. Moving onto the sources, though, I fail to see how notability is asserted, much less how BAND is met. Playing the Hard Rock Cafe isn't a huge deal; it's a franchise restaurant, not a place like CBGB's. That whole "newspapers" thing is useless, because it has links to the articles for the paper, not the material on the band. The Primerahora link is like three paragraphs, and the Alternorock is two. So five paragraphs on two websites automatically confers notability? what I did do is hunt down their performance history on ReverbNation, which is a platform for bands. They have two shows listed in 8 months, which is even worse when said shows are in 2009 and 2010. They haven't played in almost a year, and no one has listened to their material on their site. In short, this is a very badly written vanity article about a nn band, and there is no reason to recreate this. MSJapan (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete if not speedy delete as recreation of deleted material since the last AfD there has been no change in the assertion of notability which was found sorely lacking last time. Time to salt and ban any users recreating this vanity cruft. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced addition is tangential and still keeps it short of WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing the requisite independent sources. --Noleander (talk)

Comment "I added the National Rock Album: Puerto Rock Vol. 1 (by Brutal Noise, is a related label but not the official label like "Puya" back in the days), also, Primera Hora is the main Newspaper in Puerto Rico, i see as a reliable source" Mroxidizer1 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer[reply]
Comment "Also the band perform (for the guy who is saying they are not playing) when they released the latest album, they made 3 live appearance on the 3 Hot Topics in Puerto Rico, and other 5 appearances after that, they are now making new songs, so this is not vanity, I have seen less active bands that they made the wikipedia.. I checkout WP:NMUSIC and seems that you dont need ALL requiermments.. there are articles (phisicly) not in the net, posters flyers that i can prove and i can show, even more, I know "youtube" is against the rules, but if you checkout the video mentions on the articles, those official videos are there and you can watch, and are promotional videos of their songs.... once again, I am not a member of the band, in a humble way to say, I am a guy from their city and i know a lot how the rock movement that runs in Puerto Rico, take consideratiopn on that. I accept any help of you if neccesary. I am just a writer who worked for a Night Life Magazine in Puerto Rico called "Noctambulo" that doesn't exist anymore in Puerto Rico. Gracias, I appreciate your help! Mroxidizer1 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)MrOxidizer[reply]
Delete per lack of notable, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo! aside from MySpace and music download websites. The sources provided are the article are reviews, not focusing on a biographical view, but on the music. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of notability at independent, reliable sources. It is close to a speedy deletion candidate, as it is substantially the same as the deleted version PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torres Vidigal

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

Non-notable footballer – article is sourced only to blogs. The team he plays for, Portuguese Youth FC, plays in an amateur league and according to his article and soccerway he hasn't played a game for the Timor-Leste national team, so he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. I had a look for significant coverage, but could find barely any coverage at all, let alone significant (zero gnews archive hits). Does not pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an appropriate player for WP per WP:FOOTY, WP:BLP, and WP:GNG. Not yet playing professionally and a dearth of coverage in independent sources means this one's gotta go. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Andy4190 still using his blog as a reliable source and creating non-notable articles I see. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence of significant coverage (the blog entries are neither significant nor reliable), and he has not played in a fully pro league or for the East Timor national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not meeting NFOOTBALL or GNG. Xajaso (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Business: Paul Keating's interrupted revolution

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

Article about barely notable book written by notable man (but not notable author). The article was created just to justify the use of the non-free book-cover already uploaded, once it was contested. Although the book won some award, this article will never be anything past a linkfarm for positive reviews. damiens.rf 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination concedes that book is notable, but only "barely" in nominator's opinion. Our notability guideline for books says a book can be considered notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes ... reviews." The article includes links to three solid reviews. If the nominator thinks that the reviews were chosen selectively because they are "positive", then perhaps a more neutral and representative range of reviews could be added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Cullen that it meets WP:NBOOKS as it has received multiple in-depth reviews (and possibly also for the award it won). If all (or the majority) of reviews were positive, then that's what the article should represent. If there were a significant amount of negative reviews, then that should be included, but that is not an issue for AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Very marginal book. Non-notable author. It does have three published reviews, so it barely meets the WP:NBOOKS requirement. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jizoan Zen Centre

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

Does not appear to be a notable subject, failing WP:GNG. Article has existed since 2008, and no reliable third-party sources appear to have ever been present in the article, and searching for sources online yielded nothing as well. Sudo Ghost 02:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is very zen as far as sources and notability go. Link to their website doesn't work from here. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. No reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of reliable sources and doesn't appear notable. Orderinchaos 11:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Kayhan

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

Long-term unreferenced BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this musician under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above {{find sources}} links, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so this subject does not appear to comply with the general notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Only one author has added substance to the page, and they have concurred in the deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxConcordia

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

Delete. This article is not notable, out of date, and contains no useful information. MTLskyline (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the original creator of the article, I agree. Not worth maintaining. David Chouinard (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Holloway

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable individual. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Unless the nominator cares to provide more specific reasoning about why this individual fails WP:BIO or is otherwise not notable, and what was wrong with the previous nomination, it would be appreciated as it is very much expected for every renomination. Until then, Holloway appears to be well-covered in this article about her political candidacy, was on a televised chat about policing efforts during the G20, and a biography and her move to the Ontario Liberal Party is here in this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make her notable. She's never been elected. At best she's an advocate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All she needs is WP:GNG. She doesn't need to be a candidate to be notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately she doesn't meet GNG. She is the executive director of a non-notable nonprofit. She has served on the executive council of the Green Party - not enough. The article lists only two items from independent reliable sources - the Toronto Star, which is about her candidacy in the 2007 election (routine election coverage specifically does NOT establish personal notability since all candidates get some coverage) and a dead-link "candidate information" listing from the Globe and Mail, presumably election boilerplate. The rest is press releases, blogs, and stuff from or about the Green Party. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has survived 2 previous AFDs. Meets GNG. and WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surviving AFD isn't notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes infact it is. It is at the very least a strong indicator of notability that you seem to ignore.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it doesn't make it notable. It makes us foolish for having not deleted it before now. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Horsager

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

A motivational speaker and Illusionist. The article is more of an Ad (four links on where to buy his book). In 1999, he started out as a "Christian Illusionist" as one source called him. He spent time touring. He went back to school and graduated in 2007. He now is a motivational speaker on the issue of "trust in business". Published a book on trust by a Christian book publisher. Unable to find sources outside of speaking announcements or the PR Newswire article that has been plastered everywhere. The PR statement is the first reference in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews reveals insufficient independent coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 links to where the book can be purchased have been removed. This should alleviate the "ad" feel. Also, the PR article has been removed as a source. Other credible sources have been found. They will be added over the next few days/weeks. Velocity9 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Bio, based on paucity of independent sources. --Noleander (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost nothing in article indicates notability. Horsager's a "Certified Speaking Professional" which article says is "prestigious" but this is from the National Speakers Association - perhaps a non-notable organisation - whose own website doesn't seem to indicate it's especially prestigious.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too couldn't find any third-party mentions aside from the PRNewswire article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Good catch by User:Metropolitan90. Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Protest of Kenya

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS This article doesn't explain its significance beyond that of a news event. In addition, it is entirely unsourced. Ryan Vesey contribs 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps userfy. This seems to be a good-faith effort by a new user unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. The article could be called a stub or a start, but it lacks any references, even improperly formatted ones. It also lacks a date or other details that would enable another editor to search for sources for a protest demonstration that drew just 100 people, according to the text. Though unfamiliar with Kenyan politics, I can only imagine that there have been many such events in Kenyan history, and this article is just too vague to stay, at least as its now written. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Wikinews. In the event that this is not possible Keep and expand first to see the potential of this article. Beta M (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I search Google News for "Kenya" and "protest", I get stories about a protest that happened today (or yesterday), one that happened about two weeks ago, one that happened about three weeks ago, several that happened in 2010, some that happened in 2008, and so on. How can anyone reading this article even know which specific protest it is describing? Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably this protest. However, I can't see anything about this one that is especially significant.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation of the first two paragraphs of this article. And even if this weren't a copyvio, it would still be unclear to me why this protest involving only about 100 people would be notable enough for coverage in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falguni Lakhani

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. all she gets is 1 gnews hit for getting married [13]. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on both Yahoo! and Google, except for the article on the marriage and her IMDb page. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distaudio

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent sources. Rave magazine is just a publication "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". others are not reliable sources. releases not on important label. airplay not national rotation. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Distaudio. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised by duffbeerforme are invalid. Rave magazine is part of the street press music media in Brisbane and Distaudio was interviewed in this magazine by a music journalist. All other radio stations and music media are valid, third party references to cite. References have all been updated. I trust there will be no further issues to address. Menschmaster (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2011 (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) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete created by single purpose editor indicating conflict of interest. nothing in gnews and nothing in Australian search engine trove [14]. no reliable sources no article. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drumaness Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at

which resulted in deletions. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 11:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per nom, this is an identical situation to those mentioned and there is no indication of meeting GNG despite tagging & the creator being aware of the issue for some time. NB: the Junior Cup referred to is a subsidiary competition to the Senior Cup. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google research shows that virually all hits are promotional or social-networking. None of the clubs meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements. Clogher Cricket Club does have a few news articles about vandalism incidents at their facility, but those are minor, local news events. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was based upon the lack of signifigant coverage. (It's worth noting that unsupported statements are typically given very little weight by closing administrators.) Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elctrikchair

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete no notability shown for this band. albums not on important label. touring lacks coverage. band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Hail and Horns may be good but others aren't, inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:music. last afd closed no consensus with leave to speedy renominate due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with all do respect this is the thrid time you nominated this... there is plenty of coverage there is sources on this band the terrorizer comp has an article on page 3 in the october issue of 2010 there is a mini write up of the band and hails in horns did a full page spred. being listed on billboard and mtv,com gives it legitiamiacy sorry you have have to be signed or in the register in stores to get that. This is a troll keep nominating this over and over again it was defeated give it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As I had stated before: In addition to Hails and Horns, I think MTV Networks and Billboard are fairly reputable, and Terrorizer did write about the band, giving a third party opinion in addition to the band being on the CD. I see no reason to delete this article. Many Oarfin Records releases are on Wikipedia, as are many independent releases, including Trent Reznor's recent work. Labels aren't really relevant players in a band's notability anymore. I think this article perfectly satisfies wp:music.BusyWikipedian (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I had stated before in reply to your first Wikipedia edit, MTV and Billboard are reputable but they haven't written anything about Elctrikchair. Inclusion on a Terrorizer sampler cd is not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band Elctrikchair has been around since 2003. n. . It would be sillly to hate on a band just because they aren't in the public's ear 24/7. I personally have seen multiple videos online of this band and they have their own website that has legitimate distribution and sells. I feel it is silly to find this band "not notable" as a legitimate band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneFilmmaker13 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — StoneFilmmaker13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, period. Band hasn't gained in notability since the article was previously deleted by consensus. May need to be salted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reponse uncle milty youre stating an opinion with nothing backing up anything you are saying with MTV Networks and Billboard being a player in this unfortunately notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect to the editors wishing to keep this article, the only reason it wasn't deleted last time was because there was virtually no participation. Let's go through the sources on the page, one at a time:

Terrorizer magazine - Appears to be an extreme music magazine with limited circulation. Not an ideal source.
Maris The Great interview - The About Page reads, Who The Fuck is Maris The Great!?] and he also seems to be another artist in extreme music. The source isn't exactly ideal in terms of its independence of the subject.
Metal Archives listing - This is just a discography and listing. This doesn't provide evidence of notability as needed by WP:NMUSIC.
Hails and Horns magazine - Does not appear to be a notable magazine, perhaps of local interest only.
MetalWarrants - Is a deadlink.
Interview with Electrikchair - This is a blog entry, and WP generally doesn't accept blogs as evidence of notability per WP:BLOGS.
IndyFest - This doesn't even mention the band, just one of its members who left.
Billboard and MTV listings - Being listed on Billboard is insufficient. No awards have been given for the album, it has not charted, and it is just a listing on a notable website. That's not significant coverage of the band. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music Industry News Network - This is a very brief source. I also note that news can be submitted to the website for free, which means the info is probably not independent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!)

Therefore, because these sources do not fulfill the needed requirements of WP:NMUSIC, I am recommending this article be deleted. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all do respect from a series of admins that are 16 years old who play Nintendo all day(lol). Using foul language in this debate proving that the children threatening to delete this page is irrelevant. In response [jetherbolt] for one Maris the Great is an international interviewer and obviously you haven't looked at the bands he has killed(which is how he does his interviews) and is published in [Hails and Horns Magazine]. You discredit Hails and Horns when it is an international publication. There are several bands on here who list billboard and mtv as sources and none of them have an article written about them but yet that's ok. Even is a source is breif its still has legitimacy. I noticed this band is targeted I can see that. All the sources listed do meet WP:NMUSIC ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment. Can't give a real vote, as most of the sources are on sites that are blocked from my workplace, but thought I would offer some information anyway. No one is claiming that Elctrikchair is not a real band, or that the information is false in anyway. Nor should it be inferred that they are not notable among heavy metal fans. However, if you look at notability strictly from the position of Wikipedia inclusion, there are guidelines to meet. While MTV and Billboard in themselves are fully notable, being merely listed on those websites does not automatically grant notability to the subject. Having independant third-party write-ups specifically on this band on those websites, however, WOULD grant notability. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Terrorizer article. However, I do not see why that would not be allowed as a reliable third-party source. It is a publication with a circulation of about 12,000 with a specialty in this genre of music. →^Jog_Con← 22:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in favor of keeping this article, I am a bit upset to see juvenile retaliation against those opposed to keeping it. I do want to mention that I have seen Hails and Horns on the shelves at Barnes and Noble. Terrorizer is considered one of the biggest authorities when it comes to extreme genres of music, as JogCon has pointed out it has large circulation. I've personally seen it at Barnes and Noble and it was readily available at Borders. The IndyFest link does in fact use the band's name, which is mentioning it, for that matter mentioning someone leaving a band is still mentioning said band. The link happens to mention the album being released around that time, discusses the genre of the band, and where the band is from, in addition to other details about the band. Maris the Great is a notable figure in extreme music as well, and seeing that he is not a member of the band he is independent of the entity Elctrikchair.BusyWikipedian (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because a subject was deleted in the past doesnt mean they/it cant become notable....passes WP:MUSIC,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I hate to sound harsh, but all of your AfD !votes seem to have the worst possible rationale. I just scrolled back through a bunch of them, and they mostly consist of "it's notable" or "it exists". Please don't just say it passes WP:MUSIC if it doesn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being of different opinions is not a reason to Wikipedia:Wikistalking someone. Im not saying you do but it starting to smell bad. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American National Rugby League. Courcelles 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Avalanche

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

This article was previously deleted in a bundle here, but has been rewritten with new content. However, the same problems remain: this is an amateur rugby league team for which there's no substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Most sources are from the team itself, the league it's currently in, or a website owned by the league. The one independent source is a rugby league blog entry covering a tournament they played in; this isn't reliable or substantive coverage. The title previously redirected to American National Rugby League, where the team is mentioned. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into American National Rugby League. Team isn't sufficiently notable by itself, per WP:INDY and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are lots of similar articles on other teams of the American National Rugby League, and they too should probably be reviewed for deletion or merger (see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines bundle referred to by Cuchullain). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm rather sympathetic to the "delete on request" side, but, this isn't a marginal AFD, and we've no confirmation the subject and the editor with that name are the same. I'd welcome a new AFD if OTRS confirms identity. Courcelles 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Verkhovskaya

AfDs for this article:

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

Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a revert war trying to blank the article. Taking a look at it, I'm not sure there is a encyclopedic need to cover this subject and in the spirit of WP:BLP I think we owe it to the subject to consider deleting it. causa sui (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete causa sui (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of this AfD, remember that AfDs are not a vote, so please try to provide a rationale for your decision. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but I thought my nomination had covered my rationale. If you think my rationale is unconvincing, I could amplify if you like. --causa sui (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Written in promotional tone and a suspiciously low number of google hits (could be due to transliteration?), but definitely asserts WP:N and there are a plenty of references in the article. Rymatz (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - asserts WP:N,.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right that the article passes WP:GNG, but it would have to be established by sources, not merely asserted. You may want to revise your comment to clarify whether you think notability is established or merely asserted. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sympathetic to the subjects of BLPs wanting their articles deleted but they need to contact OTRS. Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) could be anybody. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree 100% with Ron Ritzman. Just because someone set up an account using her name does not mean that it is her. We have no rationale as to why she supposedly wants the article deleted - simply edit warring to blank the page. Notability is asserted and there are quite a few references that appear reliable at first glance. I will reconsider if we get a verified request through OTRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am less sympathetic to the idea that biographical subjects have some sort of right to control content than some others at WP. There is nothing remotely defamatory here. THIS PIECE in Jewish Chronicle helps demonstrate that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't have any right to control "their" BLPs but there's no harm in letting them have their say and if they are private persons (ie not "A list celebrities") and notability is marginal then I don't think there is a problem in taking their wishes into account in a close AFD. However, for their wishes to carry any weight then we need to be certain that they are who they say they are. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they don't have that kind of control, but that the person asked to have it deleted isn't a good reason to keep it just to prove a point. causa sui (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's no reason to haul something to AfD, myself... Carrite (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: the entire rationale for this deletion isn't whether this individual is notable, but rather that this biography has been the subject of an edit war by a (now blocked) user sharing the same name as the subject, and we "owe it to them" to run the article through AfD. There is clearly nothing defamatory in the piece, that's where it should have ended — yet this ended up here anyway solely under the principle of WP:SUBJECT(???)DOESNTLIKEIT. This challenge would set a poor precedent, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There does seem to be a lot of info on the net about her, including news stories. Reliable sources should be available, and if sourced, this article would appear to be about a notable individual. As Ron Ritzman points out, we have no evidence that User:Anyaverkhovskaya is in fact the article's subject, and even if she were, her opinion should carry no more weight than that of any other editor. Yunshui (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -As Yunshui stated, there is quite a bit of information available. For example, this article Project helps Shoah survivors obtain property compensation By Lynne Kleinman, is an indication that the subject and her work are notable. I believe the AfD and the user User:Anyaverkhovskaya (unlikely the subject) could be a reaction to the recent work of the subject matter listed in the aforementioned link. I personally have worked on this article and have attempted to uphold the WP:BLP & WP:GNG. The article subject matters’ work is political/religious and this article was written to highlight the impact and importance of the subject's work and life. Instead of just attacking the content and layout, perhaps guidance would be more beneficial than merely censorship. --Jmta16 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hiller17 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I have known this person personally for the last 2 and a half years. The only correction I can add is that she does not have a patent at this time. It is a patent application and it is not granted at this time. I know that she uses this Wiki site to assist her business advertising as well. No harm in that. The true purpose of this discussion is the point of being listed as a true person and the facts herein and also the merit of being listed in an encyclopedia. Personally, looking at the references she deserves to be listed. As Jmta16 states, maybe more guidance is needed.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Pinter

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC; magazine references only briefly mention him, and are about Walter Lure and his work The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC and the WP:GNG. This artist has not yet "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent." — Satori Son 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Satori Son. Not notable. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moyo Studios

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

A game agency which appears to fail WP:CORP. They apparently created a game which may have some notability on its own, but that in no way makes the agency notable by itself. I was going to {{prod}} it but it went thru CSD already, so it was ineligible. Rymatz (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination doesn't preculde a Proposed deletion :) Doesn't matter now, but you know for next time. Marasmusine (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A small company, with virtually no independent sources that discuss or analyze the company. Does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirement. The vast majority google hits are social networking or promotional material. As far as I can tell, none of the games they have had a role in producing is notable enough for an article, either. --Noleander (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of notable third-party sources, media coverage in general. Both a Google and Yahoo! only found Twitter, Yelp, Linkedin, Flickr, and company's website. Those sources don't spell notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Darkness_discography#Compilation_albums and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Collection (The Darkness album)

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

Non-notable compilation album StevePrutz (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research shows that this album has little or no independent discussion by WP:secondary sources, so it does not meet the WP:NALBUMS notability requirement. Recommend that the content be merged into the band's article, The Darkness. --Noleander (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party coverage, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Foster Hubbard

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet BAND, MUSICIAN, ACTOR, or any specialty criteria, and does not meet GNG either. None of the Phoenix Times coverage available meets the definition of non-trivial. A "going away party" (first source, now at this URL)at a local venue is not a notable event. All of the older coverage is dead. Basically, the sourcing for this article is a whole bunch of little tiny things that he was tangentially involved with, and nothing the subject did himself. Another example is the "Grand Ave. Tonight" source: It's mainly about Kevin Patterson, and Hubbard is his sidekick. It turns out that he was promoted from writer of the show because it was a Ryan Avery vehicle, and was featured in Hi, My Name is Ryan for the same reason. Thus Hubbard's "IMDB credits" are a bit appearance in a documentary in a local context and an online movie. He has only been nominated for a local music award (and has not won), and has not released any of his work commercially. Most of the article sources are dead, most of those that are not are non-RS, and other than that, there's really not much about him at all. Initial AFD in 2006 was likely correct about this being a vanity article. MSJapan (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, done a lot but none of it meets WP:GNG since the sources are all trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 23:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]