Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 4: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:06, 4 July 2010 editClaritas (talk \| contribs)7,095 edits Adding AfD for Riverdale (Archie Comics). (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:12, 4 July 2010 edit undoProve you wrong (talk \| contribs)43 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yusif Alizadeh}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Riverdale (Archie Comics)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Riverdale (Archie Comics)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Aces}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Aces}}

Revision as of 12:12, 4 July 2010

< 3 July	5 July >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yusif Alizadeh

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

Unnotable painter. Prove you wrong (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment. According to the article, he painted his first notable work 17 years before he was born and had produced six notable works before he was a year old! An impressive individual indeed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There should be a research check on that, I think there was some vandals involved. How can someone do an impressive work of art 17 years before birth? Very strange. Mysteryman19 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- From the history of the article, it seems this error has been there since the very beginning. cab (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete This article is supposed to be about an artist. In Russian I can find coverage of a failed political candidate , an agricultural businessman , the head of a society for Iranian Azeris in Baku , etc. by the same name, but no mentions of an artist. Similarly in Azeri, most of the mentions appear to be for a film director, and I see no coverage of an artist (though I read Azeri quite poorly). cab (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Vandalism. Somebody made up a name and a story to go with it, inserting cues (anachronism) that it's fake. --Werewolf Bar Mitzvah (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. The clearly policy based argument is to delete due to issues with GNG & OR but I'm going to go with an apparant improvement and give this some space for further work Spartaz 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale (Archie Comics)

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

Per WP:BKD and WP:MOSFICT, there should not be articles about fictional elements unless they meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). I can't find significant coverage of this fictional town in reliable independent sources, despite the notability of the comics it has appeared in. Claritas § 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete The nominator is spot-on. The article itself is all original research. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep If this were just any fictional setting, I'd agree with the nom. However, this is a very central element to the Archie series. I agree, though--this article needs work. Blueboy 96 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but per WP:MOSFICT and WP:BKD, significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed, which I'm just not seeing through my favourite search engine. Claritas § 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:BKD has been widely judged to lack consensus. Any particular reason you keep restating it essentially unchanged? Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines should be respected as reflecting global consensus, and the fact that you and ten editors at WP:Deletion Review disagree with a literal interpretation of the policy does not mean that it "lacks consensus". If there really is a consensus against it, bring it up at the village pump or at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (books). Claritas § 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BKD expressly discusses fictional elements from single books: this is confirmed by its wording, explanation, and all of the examples given. It has no application to fictional elements that are from multiple works of fiction, as is the case here. This makes sense because the issues of how best to summarize the content and at what level of detail are completely different. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep since Riverdale High School has already been redirected/merged here. Consider renaming to List of Archie Comics locations per similar precedents. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

~~It was actually deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Riverdale High School (comics), and the redirect was an independent editorial decision. Claritas § 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)~~

Sorry, no. The consensus on that was an overwhelming support for a redirect, which is not the same as a deletion (i.e., the history survives). The only editorial decision was as to the redirect target, since various suggestions had been made as to where it should be redirected. Mandsford 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're entirely right, I'm confusing this with another AFD debate. Claritas § 18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep (due to updates) found sources and added them. You kind of have to dig. But I was able to WP:verifynotability by verifying about how the location was inspired and how it reminded U.S. soldiers of home during WW2. This was a quick search and I'm convinced there is much more out there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is " Charles Phillips, John L. Goldwater. Archie: his first 50 years." an independent source ? Can you provide the extracts cited in some form ? I trust that it really is significant coverage, but I'd like to be certain (before changing my !vote). Claritas § 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the extensive use of Archie images, it was probably licensed/authorized, but it nevertheless appears to be a true secondary source—about the comics rather than just more comics itself. Its author is not one of the comics' creators, and its publisher is not Archie Comics. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I wondered if you'd put this up for deletion. I was wondering if you had a criteria based on NOTE, or just wanted to willy nilly delete archie related articles. I think I have my answer. I don't want to do the work, but I can assure you this is notable. A lot of those will not be independant, or non-trivial, but out of the 2000+ Gnews and 2000+ Gbooks hits. There are entire independant books on the Archie series. I'm not sure why, but independant books on comics almost never have more than a snippet view in Gbooks. It would be similar to deleting Gotham City (ie. deleting something that has tons RSs because they aren't in the article). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

None of those are reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage. Fictional elements aren't deemed notable by the amount of in-universe coverage they have received in non-indepnedent sources, but by significant real-world coverage, which just isn't there. Also, read WP:GHITS. Claritas § 18:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Loughborough Aces

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

Although the article is long and detailed, the subject appears to be non-notable. Having a trawl for mentions on Google, I get little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Doing a google news archives search returns equally little. I managed to find odd match reports carried in the local newspapers of rival teams (although nothing sustained or regular). Besides that I managed to find 3 references in two local papers to a couple of events last summer. The first was an event and match (with non student side Tamworth Phoenix) against the Australian American Football team carried in the Loughborough Echo (circ 18,000, owner Trinity Mirror) and Leicester Mercury (circ 70,000, owner DMGT). The different owners are perhaps significant, because the two articles are strikingly similar. There is a distinct whiff of recycled press release. The second in the Loughborough Echo is a match against Tamworth Phoenix .

The lack of notability isn't really surprising as University sports teams in the UK are not usually notable in ANY sport. In the majority of cases teams endeavours and even existence is unknown of even on their institutions campus, never mind in the wider world. American Football itself is of niche interest in the UK. Perhaps the lack of seriousness applied to British University sport can be illustrated from the following passage in the article "Although the Aces had a depleted squad due to certain members of the team choosing a holiday over the chance to play for the National Championship"

The other problem is that the article is unreferenced. The paucity of reliable and independent sources means that it is unlikely the vast majority of the article could ever be referenced. Although, it probably is accurate, large sections could have been made up.

Whilst probably not issues for deletion on there own it is worth note that at least "A Brief History of the Aces" appears to be a copy and paste of the teams website. Furthermore, although the article is long, I would not describe it as exceptionally well written. The article's main body basically takes the form of a year by year chronological list, with a number of notable gaps. There also seems to be a fair bit of unencyclopaedic language such as "winningest", "staggering" and "bested". ) Pit-yacker (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, per lack of actual references and lack of available references that demonstrate that this team passes WP:GNG. Length does not equal notability. Pfainuk talk 12:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable British Uni sports team (as per many others) and I am unable to find anything that contradicts that. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete no independent sources cited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - lacks the substantial sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. No sources have been provided in support of notability claims. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Geico spa

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

I don't think this company meets the level of notability required. That the article is adverty in tone doesn't help, although this isn't a reason for deletion on its own. I would have nominated it for a speedy delete but it makes (unsourced) claims of notability, so brought here for more input. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak delete. I find mentions of the company in Google but not actual coverage. It also doesn't help that the only real editors to the article are two sockpuppets that haven't been around since April 2007. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's a 100+ year old Italian company leader on the Italian market in the field of automotive paint plants. Clearly notable. --_Sulmues 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the article the company was founded in 1963. Do you have a source that says its a) 100+ years old and b) the market leader? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on the first page of the website of the company. . Also in the history part --_Sulmues 03:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that says Carrier started in 1905, not Geico spa. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, all I can find are press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was merge to Nobuyuki Anzai. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mixim 11

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

Contested prod. Does not demonstrate notably by WP:N or WP:BK. A search for reliable sources has come up with illegal scanlation or retail websites. Article is mostly a plot summary with no real-world context. —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - does not meet WP:N or WP:BK, purely in-universe content in violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge to Nobuyuki Anzai. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to Nobuyuki Anzai A possible search to those who may read the manga. There is nothing really to merge into the author's article other than its dates run which is already there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Nobuyuki Anzai. I don't read manga, but if they care enough to read the book, they just want info on the author. Old Al (Talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep or redirect. Given the author and current length of serialization, I find it quite unlikely that the series is indeed non-notable. However, I'm not opposed to redirecting it to Anzai's page in the interrim, since there's not much to say about it right now and can't find any good English sources off-hand. --erachima talk 22:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Augusto Barcia

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

Primary-sourced contested BLP PROD, does not assert notability through significant coverage in independent reliable sources; not neutral, advert-like. Chzz ► 10:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete with reservations The article is a mess. It is in need of dire neutral editing, however, one of the links at PicassoMio gives us this as a portion of an artist biography on the site:

The artist's many SOLO EXHIBITIONS include: 2001 - Retrospective, Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago, Chile. - Galeria de Talca, Talca, Chile. 1998 - Commenoz Gallery, Key Biscane, USA. 1995 - Talca University, Talca. - Municipal Gallery, Osorno, Chile. 1990 - Providencia Cultural Institute, Santiago. 1987 - Museo Lyon, Valparaiso, Chile. 1985 - Galeria Praxis, Santiago. 1984 Galeria La Pluma, Bogota, Colombia. 1983 - Museo de Medellin, Colombia. - "Barcia en el Paisaje" (?Barcia in the Landscape?), Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago. 1981 - Museo Luis Angel Arango, Bogota. 1980 - Banco de Fomento, Valparaiso. - Galeria de Pintores Andinos, Bogota. - Salon del Banco de la Republica, Bogota. 1977 - Gallery Classic, Beverly Hills, USA. 1975 - Galeria Fidel Angulo, Santiago. 1974 - Museo Municipal de Bellas Artes, Valparaiso. 1970 - Galeria Michelena, Caracas, Venezuela. 1969 - Casa de la Cultura, Ministerio de Educacion, Santiago. 1966 - Sala Calicanto, Santiago. - Sala Nahuel, Santiago. 1965 -North American Institute of Chile, Santiago. 1962 - Sala del Banco de Chile, Santiago.

The following MUSEUMS have examples of Barcia's work - Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago, Chile. - Concepcion University, Chile. - Museo Nacional de Caracas. - Museo de Medellin, Colombia. - Denver Museum, Colorado, USA. - Museo Nacional de Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. - Museo Luis Angel Arango, Bogota. - Museo de Arte Moderno de Bogota.

Throughout his career, Barcia received numerous AWARDS including: 1990 First Prize, Pintando Valparaiso 1989 First Prize, Salon Entel, Santiago 1976 First Prize, National Competition, Museo de Arte Contemporaneo, Santiago 1975 National Critic's Prize 1975 Honorary mention. Salon Colocadora de Valores. Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago 1970 Diploma, Federico Santa Maria University, Museo de Bellas Artes, Viña del Mar 1969 First Prize, Salon del Mar, Valparaiso 1968 Honorary prize, Offical Autumn Salon, Valparaiso 1966 Gold medal, Oficial Winter Salon, Valparaiso 1964 Honorary mention, Spring Salon. Casa de la Cultura, Ã?uñoa, Santiago 1962 Honorary mention, Nacional Salon, Santia

Conclusion: Notability seems well established, however without serious cleanup, the article obviously does not adhere to Misplaced Pages style standards in the least. I thought I was reading something written by Salvadore Dali for a minute there. Very heady. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ per notability as demonstrated above. The article needs work though...Modernist (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep per remarks above...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

USER

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

Non-notable, all references are first-party. Does not justify inclusion nor satisfy WP:GNG –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom, non notable artist. Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment when deleted, it should redirect to the dab page. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Appears non-notable. Bring forward disamb page to this article. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 07:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deon Taylor

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

Non notable bio. No claim to notability. Can find little in terms of reliable publications to constitute having this article. Obviously a COI too. Worthless self-promotion. Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the director if his movies are on wikipedia? I noticed his name was in the movie articles and tagged but he did not have his own page. I am not Deon Taylor, I am not the photographer of Deon Tayler, etc. I am not a shameless self promoter, I am adding the director up of a small indie horror following. There are links to his name on the official list for NBAEL, his own personal interview in this own words for citation purposes, his bio at IMDB.com. Why is that not official enough? Does he need to have a book published on him first? His birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. CenobiteCreepe (talk · contribs) is the original editor of the article; this is the editor's first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"small indie horror". My point exactly. Shitty low budget film directors with only a handful of credits should not have encyclopedia articles. Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So is Oren Peli, the director of the low budget Paranormal Activity. Still a good movie/director despite being low budget. Chain Letter is being released in theatres August.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I could not find significant coverage for his work. And to answer your question, CenobiteCreepe, you should read WP:BIO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to contest the article in that I can find secondary sources. I will add them up Tuesday.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. User:CenobiteCreepe has obvious SPA and COI problems. I could not find independent sources. IMDB does not check facts, and "small indie horror' film does not equate to notability. Racepacket (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what SPA is. I know that COI means that people assume I know Deon Taylor because I uploaded the photo and clicked I had rights to it so it wouldn't be deleted in 7 days. I deleted it and re-uploaded hopefully under proper terms but it says it will still be deleted. I won't put a photo up anymore but I am not the photographer and am not affiliated with the director. I had no idea it would cause that much confusion. Sorry.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

SPA refers to a single-purpose account. I've removed the note labeling your account as single purpose and instead noted that you're a new user and that this is your first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. I don't think there's a COI between CenobiteCreep and the subject, if the photo of Taylor was just uploaded with the wrong license terms. The problem with the article is lack of sourcing: IMDB, another movie website, and one line in a NBAE roster are all this article is hinging on. Unless he's gotten significant coverage in an independent reliable source, then he doesn't deserve an article—at least, not until later in his career, when his films go on to get him that coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep (or worst case, incubate), due to the presentation of new sources. There is a Sac Bee story on the impending national release of Chain Letter. It's eight paragraphs about Taylor, his film, and his company, so I'd say that's significant coverage. The film is due for an August release, so I'd say to err on the side of caution now and keep the article; we can always revisit in November 2010 or February 2011 if we find we've mis-assessed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll work on getting more sources up. Thanks to those helping me with my first article.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Notability is borderline, but refs are a mess. Hard to verify. It is also written like a 10-year-old was asked to write an autobiography disguised as a biography. Delete unless drastic improvements to refs and notability can be corrected. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

There are more atrociously written articles on Misplaced Pages you could focus on. Like ones with actual spelling errors by 10 year olds. On a lighter note, could you be more specific as to how the references constitute a mess? And are hard to verify? CenobiteCreepe (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. As the article creator says, several films by this guy are on the site, and link to this page. An article being poorly written is not a reason to delete. --khfan93 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep, borderline but there are enough sources, and AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Keep. Seems to be on the threshold of "significant coverage."--Pink Bull 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rosgeologiya

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

I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. Chzz ► 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. True crystal; as of June 16, 2010 there were vague plans to form it "within two years" (in Russian). Just another govt scam. East of Borschov 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ProcessLab

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

A previous version of this was deleted via a proposed deletion (proposed by myself) with the reasoning " No reliable sources; all primary-sourced; no claim to notability". This replacement version may be re-creation; it might also be considered CSD as being overtly advert-like, and needing a 'fundamental rewrite' to become encyclopaedic, but as it has been recreated, I feel that AfD is necesary to document conclusions. I therefore suggest deletion because;

It depends entirely on the primary source
It is not neutral, and contains claims that cannot be referenced through reliable sources
It would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic

Chzz ► 09:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete: although there is an article in the German Wiki I could not find refs which invalidate the arguments given by nom. Dewritech (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Spam duffbeerforme (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pliny Wood

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

No indication of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE. NtheP (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep This is a classic example of why WP Notability Doctrine is stuffed. This article appears to have VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, and the be written from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The subject is perhaps arcane, of interest to a handful of Civil War buffs. But what is the harm of keeping this biography in the Misplaced Pages database? It is not selling anything, promoting anything, or in anyway hampering anyone's Misplaced Pages user experience. Why trash a perfectly good historical bio on the grounds of "no indication of notability"? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - NtheP sums up my argument as well: No reliable sources indicate even the smallest amount of notability in any area, either under GNG or the more specific MILPEOPLE. Without any rudeness, Wood was just a casualty of the American Civil War and nothing more notable than that I'm afraid. Skinny87 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete: no notability established, completely undistinguished military career. bahamut0013_deeds 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Very junior officer. Not especially notable. Appears to be of more genealogical interest than anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. All references are from databases. Google returns only more of the same. The article gives no assertion of being anything more than a genealogical entry. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by RTÉ

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

A mostly unreferenced list of supposed programming broadcast by RTÉ. Half of the articles are red-linked and some out of date. It would be impossible to find references for all of these programmes. — Cargoking talk 09:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Serves as navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP for linked articles (that many are redlinked is irrelevant, they should be either bluelinked or blacklinked if not notable enough for own article) that cannot be satisfied by a cat. In the same vein, additional information can be provided, such as production years, short description , budget, et cetera. Compare with List of BBC programs or List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC, for instance victor falk 12:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Andree Ochoa

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

Does not appear to meet WP:N, as all sources are primary sources, either associated with the subject, or press releases. PROD was disputed. Fbifriday (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Notability is not established in the article. The current sources are either primary sources or do not mention him. I can not find any sources that do mention him to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --_Sulmues 15:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. No sources discuss him, most are spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Organically Derived Communism

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

Neologism that doesn't exist outside this article. See for example Google: OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Not much else to say, there is no indication in any google search that this term is used outside of this article, no news, web, scholar or book hits out side of[REDACTED] or a single blog that mnentions this article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - what else describes the emergence of a communist state based on abundant energy rather than one having been forced on the people by a physical revolutionary force or other? There is ample debate for centuries about the role of energy and scarcity-of-energy in a communist state. See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Economics Section: Economics and other disciplines: Last two paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.164.34.109 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) — 74.164.34.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The link you provided does not use the term Organically Derived Communism anywhere. To have an article we need to show that the term is used in reliable sources. I have looked and can not find the term anywhere. If others have not used the term we can't use it. Misplaced Pages only summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There are several other names for the same thing. You are not the first one to have these impossible fantasies about unlimited resources. See for example The Venus Project. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete. No reliable sources exist which discuss the concept, nor are any examples provided in the article. Accordingly, the article seems to be about a new concept, or at least a newly-coined term for one. Either way, it doesn't deserve an article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete no reliable sources, no article. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Blonde with Bare Breasts

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

Recent movie with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Even in the Netherlands alone it is daily shown in several movie theaters as feature film. See also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Patrick (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete as article fails WP:N, there is no indication of notability. (Article contains only a plot section as content). Armbrust _Contribs 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes... it need expansion and sourcing if possible. Schmidt, 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As a French film with European release in France and the Netherlands, and apparently no English release (yet), we need to check non-English sources toward notability. Schmidt, 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
French: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete without prejudice toward recreation when/if the film gets more coverage. New film. French and Dutch release. Non-English sources wil be required. I improved the article some, expanding it... cleaning up style and format... adding some sources toward its production... but it's just not enough at the moment. As its author feels it is or will be getting coverage in the Netherlands, I encourage it be returned to him with our thanks, and be userfied to User:Patrick/workspace/The Blonde with Bare Breasts for continued improvement. Schmidt, 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is no requirement that citations be in English. It is sufficiently cited in French. Shii (tock) 05:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree fully, and stated the need for sources, even non-English ones, in my comment above.... and note, I am the person who added the French and Italian sources to the article in my expansion and cleanup. ~~If someone comes up with more than I could find, I'd be exceedingly happy to reconsider.~~ Schmidt, 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep now, as it has crept over to notable. I found a decent Dutch review of the film and added it with a couple more sources. I feel now that there is more available for further improvement. Will just take some digging. Schmidt, 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Variety review has been added now as well. Schmidt, 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep: per Schmidt - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep: Notable and good C article.--_Sulmues 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. After actually taking a second look, I realized this was a G5 page creation and has now been trashed. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Lina Huynh

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

Facebook is NOT a reliable, third-party source suitable for a BLP article. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Jeff beat me to it. The "source" if we can call it that isn't even accessible to non-friends anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry Keaton

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

The sister and younger brother of Buster Keaton do not have any major acting credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete on both accounts. An extra in a few movies does not an actress make, no sources, and as notability is not inherited...--Fbifriday (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Very tough to make a flat declaration here in 2010 that roles in pre-intenet 1930's and 50's films are significant to those films or not, as there is a cinematic history to consider and notability in the 30's is still notability per WP:NTEMP. Naturally, Harry being related to Buster will be part of many of these 133 news articles of Harry from the 30s until the present, and in these 101 books. And another consideration is that while Louise is in fewer news articles,, she is in more books.. Personally, I believe that in these cases, sources allow a presumption of notability per WP:GNG and the articles (and project) will benefit from them being expanded and properly sourced... specially as these are not WP:BLP1E nor a violation or WP:NOT. Barring that, a merge to Buster's article should at the least be itself considered. Schmidt, 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay... okay... I'll get to it and report back. Schmidt, 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge both and redirect to Buster Keaton#Family, as both Harry and Louise have plenty of available sources (and yes, many are in context to familial relationship to Buster). Considering that both Harry and Louise are part of citable cinematic history, and this extensive sourcing seems to meet WP:GNG, it would be a shame to let this information vanish from Misplaced Pages simply because these two had a much more notable brother. Schmidt,
More: Some of the earliest news articles do not so much deal with Harry's film work, but conentrate rather on a bit of a scandal, where Harry had even while acting, for several years used the fame of the Keaton family name to support running an acting school/casting agency during the early 1920s. The acting school was determined to be a fraud, and Harry was convicted accordningly. The conviction was appealed in 1930. I could learn the results of the new trial, but do not wish to pay the $50 to find out. Buster must have been mortified. Harry did briefly join Buster in Florida in 1933, where Buster was about to shoot The Fisherman. Harry was described as Buster's personal assistant. Harry returned to California in 1934 and had parts in various films before and after WWII. Quite an intriguing bit of history. Schmidt, 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I note that the instructions at WP:ENT allow a "presumption" that then encourages editors to look for sources that meet the GNG and so might allow an individual to be determined notable. Though Harry's career pales when compared to that of his brother, his starring in film roles from 1919 encouraged me to look. I found enough coverage so as to make me feel that both Harry and Louise merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages in some fashion. Schmidt, 14:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Shane Bettenhausen

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was nominated a year ago with the consensus of keeping the article as long as it gets fleshed out. A year has passed since then and the article is even more of a stub now than it was year ago. Right now it reads more like a résumé for the person than an actual biography and personally I've seen no convincing reason to keep this page since it fails to assert notability. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Sources found in 2008 (first nomination) would still not be enough to pass WP:BIO, and any other sources I've found tend to simply mention him, rather than talk about him, which is what the original sources found did. --Teancum (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete No improvements to article after a year. Still not up to Wiki standards and unlikely to be as no one is taking the time to improve the page. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Delete. Unremarkable person. Cannot find non-trivial sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete This person is of no notability. Doesn't seem to be in any way a person in the Gaming industry who is considered to be notable. Yousou (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has now changed his/her !vote to "merge", but since more people are leaning toward "keep", we'll go with that and then decide if we need to merge any of the info to Lower Saxony at a later time. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Lower Saxony

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

Virtually no information on the office, duplication of article on Politics in Lower Saxony. Only purpose to establish use of Prime Minister in this context Dodo19 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Keep Perhaps as a list?--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is already incorporated in articles Lower Saxony and Politics of Lower Saxony with a redirect: List of Ministers-President of Lower Saxony --Dodo19 (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Amend to Merge How about a merge with the Lower Saxony article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemesouviens32 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep A valid article in its own right, would bloat the main Lower Saxony article. Needs fleshing out and expansion. Obviously the sources are there in German to do so. Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Head of state --Quelle Jessen (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep Head of government post in a major first-level division of a country. Blueboy 96 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep Very poor nomination for deletion on this topic, regardless of the quality or lack thereof of the article in question. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep, notable article subject. Whatever problems are there in the article can be improved by editing and adding references. --Soman (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was speedy merge to Radio-frequency identification. For the record, you don't have to start an AfD in order to merge an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Read-on-metal

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

Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID. Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge any verifiable content to RFID. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

At That Point

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

It is no longer notable. It heavily relies on Rap-Up as the main source and has no confirmed release date. Though it has singles only 1 charted. Additionally all of the singles were merged into the album as they also lacked notability. It is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL as it still has no confirmed track listing or cover art. It should be deleted and relevant information can be salvaged and placed at Teairra Marí. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Merge to Teairra Marí as suggested by the nominator. Rap-Up is the only source I can find saying that the album will be released at all (in August, according to them), but a Google News search reveals some unreliable blogs saying that the album has been shelved indefinitely. Either way, since there is info available about this currently nonexistent album, it can be added to the artist's article. This exact same thing has happened before: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deltron Event II (2nd nomination). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is just beacuase of the reasons given. Unreliable blogs are just that, Rap-Up however (which is a magazine too), is notable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. No objection to redirecting to an appropriate target. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Norm Burley

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

This individual's claim to notability is that he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn, no independent sources are listed. It isn't a good sign when the first result from a google search for Norm Burley is about a rugby player, the results that are actually related are trivial mentions. Coverage issues aside, this seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I was aware of that when I created the page (somewhat hastily) by putting "definitely a stub" on that edit's description. I also know that in creating the page I didn't do enough to establish notability, but I'm working on that, as you can see. However, here's why I think the page ought to remain on WP as a standalone article (rather than a redirect to Zero Records or some similar page): When I created this article, it already had 4 articles linking to it through "dead links" - Don Grashey, Zero Records, Loretta Lynn and Oliver Lynn. This seems to indicate two notable events: 1)Co-founding and financial backing of Zero Records with Don Grashey and 2)Discovery and support for the career of Loretta Lynn. Grashey's page and Zero Records mention little of Loretta Lynn - focusing instead on the record company, which supported many additional artists. Oliver and Loretta Lynn's pages mention Zero Records in a very different light, focusing primarily on Burley's work as a part of Zero Records to help jumpstart Loretta's career. I added a quote to the Norm Burley page from a cited work that emphasizes his significance in Lynn's career.

Rather than say "he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn", I would suggest that, more accurately, "he discovered and recruited Loretta Lynn and partially backed Zero Records". As referenced in several published works (see third bullet, below), he was almost singularly responsible for discovering and jump-starting her remarkable career - he provided financial support, made the first printings of her album that garnered her first airplay (a process that is prominent in Coal Miner's Daughter, an Oscar-winning film).
I know very little about the Don Grashey side of things - I am mostly familiar with Loretta Lynn's story, but was interested in learning more about Norm Burley and Zero Records. It appears that Loretta Lynn herself may not have been the only reason Burley was involved with Grashey or Zero Records, as indicated by the Zero Records page.
One of the points in WP:BLP1E is that inclusion of individuals significant for only one event can overemphasize the importance of an event. As stated earlier, I believe that Burley was significant for two events, but even just focusing on the Loretta Lynn side of the situation, I think it's unlikely that overemphasizing the importance will be a problem. The most common biographical work on Loretta Lynn is the movie Coal Miner's Daughter, which won an Oscar and is played frequently on television stations. Printed works have stated that the movie underemphasized Burley's significance . So this article may actually help emphasize significance of the event in a more appropriate way. He has been mentioned in several printed works, including Country Music Culture: from Hard Times to Heaven by Curtis Ellison, Coal Miner's Daughter (book) by Loretta Lynn and Vecsey (1977), and 2002's Still Woman Enough, yet receives little recognition in more pedestrian discussions of Lynn's career. Davemcarlson (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 2 says you, says two 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Loretta Lynn#1960 – 1966: Early country success. WP:BIO1E applies as all he is known for is seeing her perform and funding the release of her first single on a one-shot record label. That's it. He's not notable as all the coverage that exists is passing mentions in the context of Lynn's career. Fences&Windows 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Loretta Lynn. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. One strong keep rationale + 3 "per nom" deletes = no consensus with leave to renominate in a few weeks to produce better discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ISLA Bank

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches find more results for a holiday cottage in Scotland. Restricting the search to the Philippines just shows directory listings and nothing to establish WP:notability noq (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete agree with nom. Holiday cottage in Scotland sounds interesting DRosin (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Leaning to Keep - Although the evidence isn't quite so strong as I'd like. The notability criteria should be out of WP:COMPANY and not just the general vague notability preference here. A Google test may not necessarily be the best possible source of information in this case, and I'm unfortunately not familiar with sources in the Philippines to provide a more useful source of information to help out in this case. With the only current "source" of information being the official website, I find that to be dubious, but I'm quite certain that there are some additional sources of information for this institution that could be found to meet the raw sourcing requirements. The real hook, something that makes this more than just another bank, is something that would be useful for the article. In this sense, notability is the issue and if something more about the bank being "established from a rich Filipino heritage" could be defined or expanded... what heritage they are really talking about in the article could make this something useful. At the moment, it reads like an advertisement and not something encyclopedic. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Speedy deletion tag was removed first by the article's author, and then after it was restored, by an editor with no other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - As per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep - or at least no consensus for deletion. JForget 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Panic (company)

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

From speedy. Does not appear to be notable as it lacks second-party refs. However... there is a category Category:Panic software which has seven bluelinked articles. So I think a company that has seven products with articles might itself be notable. Hard to find refs, but "panic" is a fairly common term so this makes it hard. I do believe that the company is probably not notable, but it does deserve an AfD. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep(for now). The blue links in the category seem to have notability established, so this company should too. However, due to the name of the company, all I can find when I search for sources are a bunch of Douglas Adams references, however, I am no good at finding sources anyway. I would say keep, tag as needing sources, give a little bit for sources to be gathered, and if none can be gathered, then we'll address the AfD again at that time. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Barely notable, but err on the side of caution and keep. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete for failing to comply with Verifiability rule, General Notability guideline and its advertisement nature. Also nominate and delete all the product articles of this company, as they are equally not notable and are for advertisement only. Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I believe they are notable, here are some sources: . I'll work these into the article if the article is not deleted. Nuujinn (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was No Consensus It certainly appears that this article meets the Set Index Criteria. That it duplicates to some extent a DAB page should not concern us. A strengthened lead would improve this list signficantly. Mike Cline (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of synagogues named Temple Israel

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

I've been having a lengthy discussion with another editor about this article, who says it is a "Set Index Article" (WP:SIA). I have argued that it should be deleted because:

It is not a Set Index Article because there is no "specific type" of synagogue that is a "Temple Israel" synagogue.
The shared name is a trivial coincidence, rather than a fundamental characteristic.
It violates WP:NOTDIR.
Misplaced Pages is better (and more typically) served by the disambiguation page Temple Israel.

The other editor has argued that this is indeed a Set Index Article, and should, in fact, replace the current disambiguation page at Temple Israel. I'm happy to work on improving this article (and future similar ones), but not if AfD determines that they don't belong on Misplaced Pages to begin with. Jayjg 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

weak keep. Having a list and a disambig for apparently the same purpose looks like a problem in need of being fixed. But it's not as bad as it seems: the list can always go beyond bare disambiguation and explore the places that don't have standalone articles, as well as things common to all (starting with Why Temple? wasn't the Temple destroyed forever, milleniums ago? - right, I know it's a Reform specialty that's frowned upon by others, but it needs to be explained in more detail than is present in Temple#Jewish_synagogues_and_temples). East of Borschov 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, even if this article is kept, it won't have a discussion on the use of the term "Temple" in the Reform movement, since that's not really specific to Temple Israel, or Temple Sinai, or any of the many other synagogues called "Temple something". Jayjg 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Move to a disambiguation page Temple Israel. Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Keep this SIA article but move it to the location Temple Israel and replace the dab that is there now? That is exactly what i propose, in my note below. Just not sure if that is what you mean. --doncram (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This looks like a classic Set Index Article.It's a list article whose entries contain some useful information, but would not individually stand alone: the entries by themselves would be sub-stubs. Converting to a dab page would not be helpful to our readers: it would disambiguate to a set of sub-stubs. Therefore, I suggest leaving this page as-is. —hike395 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the Set Index Article criteria is fulfilled because it is a set of synagogues. —hike395 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that any combination of synagogue articles can be a "Set Index Article"? How about Synagogues whose name begins with "T"? Jayjg 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No: All of the entries have the same name ("Temple Israel") and belong to the same set ("synagogues"). This matches the SIA criteria at WP:D. If you wish to start a List of synagogues whose name begins with T, that is outside the scope of the SIA criteria. —hike395 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Later: I was mistaken in thinking that the linked article are sub-stubs. I think it boils down to whether this article makes sense as a stand-alone list (of which an SIA is a subtype). Looking at other lists in WP, I believe it has the potential to become a good stand-alone list, and shouldn't be deleted. The current state of the list is somewhat sad: I hope that editors decide to develop the list further. —hike395 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTDIR. An extremely commonplace name for a synagogue. What's next, a list of Roman Catholic churches called "Mary Our Queen"? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a list of notable places named that, not a list of all places named that. You have to understand the implicit "notable" in the title, as for any other list-article of places. So it covers places that have Misplaced Pages articles, and other places that are adequately supported by sources as being notable. In fact it can help prevent the proliferation of separate articles on the marginally notable ones, by allowing for them to be covered in this list article instead of by separate articles, and be subject to good editing by Jayjg or other concerned editors maintaining the list-article going forward. --doncram (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:SIA gives List of peaks named Signal Mountain as an example, and I think this is analogous. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Only for Signal Mountain there needs to be a separate dab page because of the existence of a notable town or two that are covered in the dab page, but which are not of the same type of thing as the mountains covered only in the SIA. So there, a separate dab page is needed. For this case, all the items are of the same type, and a separate dab page is not needed and can be dropped (perhaps by moving to "Temple Israel (disambiguation)" and then redirected, in order to save its edit history), making way for the SIA to be moved to the most natural name, "Temple Israel". --doncram (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure why List of peaks named Signal Mountain is an SIA either, since the peaks have nothing in common besides a name. USS Enterprise makes a little more sense, since it's a more or less about two series of related ships - that is, each set of U.S.S. Enterprises (in one case fictional) were built by the same government, and inherited the name from the previous. Jayjg 05:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Jayjg, but since the guideline cites Signal Mountain as an example, I think this should be kept as an analogous SIA. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This is a valid set-index-article that has existed for several years, fully compliant with wp:SIA and obviating need for a separate disambiguation page. It could/should be moved back to "Temple Israel" where it long existed, and replace the duplicative disambiguation page there now. The only reason the SIA is at the current name is the deletion-nominator recently wrote over "Temple Israel" to create a different article, then some confusion ensued, and that article was eventually moved to Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and the dab page was creatged. Upon my objections the SIA was recreated but now at the name "List of synagogues named Temple Israel" and its edit history was restored (by Jayjg, thanks). I believe there is no need to have a separate disambiguation article as every entry in the dab appears in this set-index-article. This example is also under discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Set index articles - what is "of a specific type"? and at Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article. I don't get what the deletion-nominator actually wants. In the latter Talk page discussion Jayjg expresses interest in developing this SIA more fully, and developing more SIAs like this one, if this will not be deleted. This AFD is a test of the community of editors, and in that sense not a real proposal. Or maybe deletion is what Jayjg now wants, i am not sure. But, the SIA remains as always a valid list-article. --doncram (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, because the name "Temple Israel" is almost a generic sort of name for many synagogues and such a list is pointless and the worst of WP:LISTCRUFT. Like creating a list List of synagogues named Temple Judea, or List of synagogues named Temple Shalom, or List of synagogues named Beth David or some such etc etc etc. All quite pointless. IZAK (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate of Temple Israel. Both of them have the sole reason of disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it's not exactly a duplicate. This preceded the current dab page set up now at Temple Israel, and this includes more entries than those listed on the Temple Israel dab page (because this covers some notable places not having[REDACTED] articles). Also this is different than a dab page; this can include sources and descriptions and pictures and so on. If/when it is verified that this set-index-article is okay, then I do happen to agree it will be appropriate to redirect the dab page to here or to move this SIA to that name. The question is, i guess, is this a valid set-index-article topic. --doncram (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Temple Israel, which is a disambiguation page. This is more like disambiguation material. Dew Kane (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you can't merge in sources and descriptions and pictures: do you mean all those should be deleted? And you can't add the items in the SIA which do not have[REDACTED] articles, to the dab page. There is nothing you can add to the disambiguation page, practically, by disambiguation page rules (wp:MOSDAB). The AFD was opened by its nominator who would actually like to add more sources and descriptive material and pictures to this SIA page, as long as it is agreed that the SIA page is valid by Misplaced Pages guidelines. --doncram (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the article didn't actually have any pictures in it, until you added one, right after making that comment here. And I'm not sure I'd add pictures to this article even if it is kept. Jayjg 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve Abney

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

He played in four minor league games and worked a few odd jobs in baseball afterwards. This is not a notable individual by Misplaced Pages definitions. Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per above. It's almost speedyable in its non-noability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - There is nothing in the article that indicates importance at all and I could not find anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Meets WP:ATH because he has played in a fully professional league (see professional baseball), however, it is obvious copyright infringement from his Baseball-Reference Bullpen page. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was redirect to National Collegiate Athletic Association. give it a redirect to what User:Jujutacular suggested JForget 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

NCAA history

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

Not sure what the value of this article is. The history of the NCAA can be adequately covered at National Collegiate Athletic Association. The history of college football can be covered at College football and History of American football. Most of the college football history listed here is from before the creation of the NCAA anyway. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to National Collegiate Athletic Association. The section on the history there is enough. If it were expanded, this article could be spun out, but currently there isn't enough info there to warrant a separate article. I have no problem with this article in principle. Jujutacular 03:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Subject matter is covered elsewhere, this article is, at best, seed for an information fork. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete I think that the original intent of this in 2005 was to write an article about the nearly century long history of the body that oversees almost all university and college athletic programs in the United States, until it was realized that it had already been done. I guess that I do have a problem with the principle of keeping an unnecessary article around, and there's nothing here that needs to be merged or redirected. Mandsford 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Waveland (Danville, Kentucky)

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

estate article, with little or no assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Though the article didn't indicate it before, this property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a designation which indicates the estate is notable. TheCatalyst31 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - The NRHP listing does indicate notability. Also it has received significant coverage at least one non-NRHP 3rd party source. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is notable and rather well-known as a tourist attraction in central Kentucky, as the link added later demonstrates. It's usually a good idea to work on an article in userspace first and then to post it, rather than posting and then working on it. Put on the bandaid first, wade into the shark-infested waters second, not the other way around. Mandsford 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. And I like Mandsford's advice, :-P. --_Sulmues 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spartaz 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lamar School

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG. elektrik SHOOS 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NHS. Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Wp.NHS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Armbrust _Contribs 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Userfy and delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust _Contribs 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - contains a high school and, as always, what is required is attention to research sources not a rush to deletion. When you have a new editor, experienced editors should provide guidance not propose their pages for deletion within 13 minutes whilst still being written - see WP:BITE.TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep per longstanding practice of retaining high school articles.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Secondary schools are invariably held to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Just noting that I completely disagree with Misplaced Pages practice that holds that all high schools are inherently notable. Hopefully this will change in the future. Them From Space 06:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep per the strong precedent of considering high schools automatically notable. Swarm 03:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of controversial books

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

Unencyclopaedic, especially the last column, and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, see also WP:Articles for deletion/List of controversial books. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete This is entirely original research and synthesis. While the idea of an article on books with significant controversies surrounding them is an inherently good idea, this article has too many flaws, and can safely be deleted (or userfied) without losing valuable content. Summaries are OR, many of the books listed dont have mention of the controversies in their main articles. some controversies, such as Kim's, are generic for a long list of older works. we would need clear inclusion criteria for a list, and the term "controversial" cannot provide a clear inclusion criteria. references dont seem to support enough of the article to salvage it. A better list is List of books banned by governments. the actal American Library Association list of controversial/banned books over the years could be an article by itself, and would contain most of these books. if article creator is interested, maybe that would be a better article to create with some help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per Mercurywoodrose, or possibly redirect to List of books banned by governments. Tavix | Talk 03:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry Johnson (war veteran)

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

Fails the general notability guidelines, as there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. There is also very little (if any) claim to notability: essentially he is someone who has lived to a great age and served as a solider around the time of (but not in) an important conflict. I admit that, being that this is such a common name, I could have easily missed sources, so I will gladly withdraw my nomination if sources demonstrating notability are uncovered. Canadian Paul 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete He has done nothing of note beyond the local newspaper article saying he turned 105 years old. I'm assuming old age doesn't equate with notability but will certainly defer to majority opinion. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Delete – Fails to provide notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. ttonyb (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete He is not a war veteran, per the article, but has reached the age of 108, God bless him. Nothing which satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. No notability. --_Sulmues 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Being old isn't enough, nor is being in the merchant navy (not armed forces, not a war veteran). Nuttah (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mean Girls (franchise)

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

There's not much of a franchise at the moment for there to be an article. There's the original film, a relatively obscure video game, and two planned sequels that are far too early in development for us to even know if they'll ever exist: one that has yet to shoot (Mean Girls 2) and another that is only in talks (Mean Moms). –Chase (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Filming for the sequel begins in July 2010. Meaghan Jette Martin and Maiara Walsh have already been cast. An open casting was held just two hours ago in Atlanta, Georgia for the film. The film actually has two video games. I will be creating the page for Mean Girls: High School Showdown soon. The film also had a soundtrack and the films are based off two self-help books by Rosalind Wiseman. That's a pretty big franchise. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.204.243 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have either of these video games received extensive coverage in reliable sources? No. Have either of the sequels been filmed yet? No, and they haven't received too much coverage at this point. Are the books part of the "franchise"? No. The soundtrack is pretty obscure too. –Chase (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete A single film does not a franchise make, nor does one film and 1-2 unnotable video games. Sufficiently covered by the existing films article, and per WP:CRYSTAL we should not be attempting to predict any future notability of two additional films which are not even in production yet. Casting is not production enough for WP:NFF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Merge There's some decent content in the Development section which could go in the Mean Girls article. The Mean Moms section can be merged into Rosalind Wiseman's article; she wrote the book on which the film is based on. - Kollision (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge relevant info to Mean Girls. Not enough now for a separate article. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Agree a franchise article on a single movie is preposterous. There are always 10,000 movie tie-in products such as video games and so forth, so it shouldn't count for anything beyond common marketing of the movie. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Delete The video games were obvious cash grabs which were only designed to use title familiarity to get $30 out of mothers who didn't know better (and who clearly didn't have the sense to see that Lindsay Lohan wasn't even on the Mean Girls DS cover). Video games which are pretty much "dress-up" and "Bejeweled" clones do not a franchise make, and there are no sources for any future films as of yet. Nate • (chatter) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's evident (from the references cited in the main Mean Girls article RE: Mean Girls 2) that a 2nd movie is currently in production, I don't really get the point of deleting this article, only to have to recreate it in 1 week's time when an "official" source does confirm there will be a sequel. I'm also not sure that someone's perceived quality of the 2 video games is particularly relevant (and they've been covered by IGN and Gamespot) - I would say a movie, a movie currently in production, another planned movie, a soundtrack and 2 video games does make a franchise - maybe others disagree. Merge it at the very least. Tom (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if a second film is made, that doesn't make it a franchise. Soundtracks are par for the course for a film and do not make it a franchise either. Nor two tie in games. A franchise requires far more than just two films, and some unnotable media. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecotrophobiosis

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

This seems to be in violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY, because it is structured like an academic paper and seems to contain original research. The article was created by "Prof. Dr. L. Horst Grimme", and thus is probably an attempt to attract attention to his work on the subject. Claritas § 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fairly clear who Hgrimme (talk · contribs) is, and that xe has a conflict of interest when it comes to concepts that xe has coined and that the world has as yet failed to take on board. And that is the situation at hand. The only thing known as ecotrophobiosis in the world at large is trophallaxis. "Ecotrophobiosis" was the name that E. Roubaud coined for it in 1916, but William Morton Wheeler's 1918 name of trophallaxis was what actually stuck in the end. Textbooks still mention Roubaud's alternative name, though, so ecotrophobiosis should redirect there. I can find no evidence that M. Grimme's concept has gained any traction in the world at large.
And much of this article, it should be noted, doesn't even address the subject, but rather provides information on other subjects that we already have articles on — as a lengthy prelude to explaining why the new concept, with the new name that the world at large outside of its coiners has yet to acknowledge, is a good idea. The sections in this article on nutrition, nutrification, and food production overlap our existing fairly lengthy and more detailed articles on those subjects. However, the great shame of this article is that the section explanining trophobiosis would have made a welcome addition to trophobiosis, which is a stub that could do with exactly that sort of expansion.
That last is the problem, as far as I'm concerned. It aside, this article is a synthesis of superficial discussions of other subjects, that we already have articles on, brought together to support a new concept being promoted here by one of its coiners, that hasn't been independently acknowledged by the world at large. This is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with the section on trophobiosis is that it is entirely unsourced. While the information would be welcome, citations to reliable sources would probably be needed if such a large body of text was to be merged. Claritas § 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  - Read it again. It directly cites de Bary, Francis Chaboussou, and (Wolfgang, I think) Tischler, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    - You're right - I was reading the "Trophobiosis of man as an ecosystem approach" section. Per Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete, however, there may be issues with deleting the article and keeping content, due to attribution. Claritas § 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
      - Hence the problem. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Either we salvage this, or Delete it. It's not notable, and it's an essay. Delete. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I will defer from voting due to the strange nature of this article and my ignorance of the subject in general. Clearly an attempt at a collegiate work of some sort, the tone of the piece is non-standard and the references (if they are indeed refs) are listed as literature and in the wrong format for Misplaced Pages. Hard to say delete or keep, but certainly needs lots of work if it is to be kept. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Delete term used only in a very few papers; not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jayjg 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Elfman

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Richard Elfman

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

Promotional article about an apparently non-notable subject, who has notable relatives. May be part of a walled garden, see also buzzine. References are not reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Richard Elfman has a thirty year career in film, music, and theater. Please refer to his page. While none of his films were exactly blockbusters, Forbidden Zone has a cult following, and even a live theater homage. Richard was also the founder of the hugely influential music group Oingo Boingo. This article does have problems - namely that the article's subject appears to be the main contributor to (and heavy-handed editor to) it, but that's a different issue, and not one of notability. GreenGlass 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first link you provide is a 404 not found, and neither would considered reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Clearly promotional. I went and deleted the unsourced content, as well as information about his relatives and companies (since the article is supposed to be about him), and there's not much about him that seems to be actually notable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Mr. Vernon. Elfman has certainly done many things, but it's not clear which, if any, are actually notable Vartanza (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Richard Elfman is the creator of Forbidden Zone, which has a large cult following. He was also the leader and founding member of The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. In other words, without Richard Elfman, there would have been no Danny Elfman as we know him. There quite possibly would have been no Pee Wee Herman either as Paul Reubens is a fan of Forbidden Zone. As was pointed out above, Mr. Elfman's quite colorful contributions to his own page are a different issue. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I should add, just do the news search and you'll find a ton of sites discussing Richard Elfman and Forbidden Zone if you need any proof of the large cult following. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep notable as the founder of Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo , and also as director of Forbidden Zone . Interviewed in the Austin chronicle, SF Bay Guardian. -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Mr. Vernon. What notability is there is by association only, and even then it's extremely weak. It's also extremely clear, given the article history, that this is being used as a platform for self promotion (see WP:COI, WP:SPAM). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The issue of the article being used for self-promotion is separate from notability. If a more notable person, say Seth Green, were editing their own Misplaced Pages article in ways that didn't conform to Misplaced Pages standards, would we delete the article? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Question Is "Richard" Elfman actually Danny Elfman? If so, there is no question about notability. He did the soundtracks for many Tim Burton movies and has already been pointed out, was the founding member of Oingo Boingo, a band with several hit songs in the 1980's. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Answer: “Is Richard Elfman actually Danny Elfman?” That can be confusing. Like the time a few years back I was getting drunk at some swank Hollywood club as the pretty barmaid--an Oingo Boingo fan--kept filling my ($11@) glass and refusing to let me pay for it. Under the noise and din of the music, I finally realized that the young lady had me confused for my younger brother Danny. I started to reach for my wallet, explain things and pay up, but decided not too, as I seemed to be getting confused on the issue myself… and I promise to never enter stuff like this on my article page in the future, even if it can be referenced!Richard Elfman (talk)

He is Danny Elfman's older brother. On the negative side, he does have a problem with his own vanity, which has affected the article as he has participated in it. I noted a website in External links questioning the fact that he claims to be younger than his younger brother. Not included is his Myspace page that comes up in a google search making that same claim. He certainly pales in the shadow of his brother's accomplishments from exactly the same notable starting point. He has obviously made some different career choices, but that is not cause to delete him.Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know Danny had an older brother, or that he was instrumental in forming Oingo Boingo, so I found the article interesting and informative. I admit I came into this after the AfD nom and have not looked at Mr. Elfman's apparently colorful edits to his own article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Strong Keep I think I've answered my own question above ^^^ and although he is not Danny Elfman, he did apparently found the band Oingo Boingo, which in itself is quite notable. His work in movies is also notable, though somewhat less notable than founding the band. If there are problems with the subject's contributions, the article can be re-edited and he could be banned, if necessary, but I hope that wont be necessary. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Keep The fellow founded Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo and even MTV refers to his 1982 Forbidden Zone, which is still being screened 28 years later, as a "cult musical comedy" And oh... I forgot to mention I believe he may even meet WP:BAND. Schmidt, 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Oingo Boingo connection makes him notable, QED. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep I added and sourced more information. Oingo Boingo alone should make him notable, plus he's got more of a career of cult films, a few of them notable. Trackinfo (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep without question. Google books Interview on quietearth, review of Forbidden Zone. Mentions in cinema guides etc. --JN 466 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology! I have apparently used my article page as a promotional platform with an obvious conflict of interest and lack of neutrality. Unfortunately, I must claim utter ignorance of the editing rules and guideline of Misplaced Pages, of which I have now started to read for the first time. I very much respect Misplaced Pages and value what it offers. Mea culpa and sorry for any fuss I have created. One last note: that birth date stuff about me being younger than Danny was put out by a long former publicist—she even created my MySpace page--which I had forgotten about until reading this page, and just ordered the MF page taken down—thank you. Please keep up your good work! Richard Elfman (talk)
Comment Mr. Elfman, it is common to be slapped around by editors your first time editing here. Though many people feel anyone can do anything to Misplaced Pages, and that is true, vandalism and non encyclopedic content will be removed, eventually. Contrary to many articles that have no notability to recommened them, we are well beyond that with you and your contributions to pop culture. I will thank you on behalf of all the editors here at Wiki and am glad to say it looks like we will keep it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Rant We, the Misplaced Pages community, create rules upon rules upon rules then expect "newbies" to follow the rules without giving enough benefit of doubt. I've always found it frustrating. I see no real reason for this AfD. As the article needs improving, attention could have been brought to it in a less aggressive and more constructive manner prior to threatening deletion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FireScope, Inc.

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

Although I was able to find FireScope mentioned on many pages in Google, this page reads like an ad. Additionally, the references link to the company website, a reader poll on informationweek, and a blog. Without third party reliable sources establishing notability, I think this is a easy delete. --Gnowor_C 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. As stated, lots of GHits but I can find nothing that is significant or in a reliable source. Fails WP:ORG. Nuttah (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Another company looking at Wiki for free advertising. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Speedy Keep - For no reason at all!!!! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryman19 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recurring segments from Tosh.0

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

Contested prod. This article is one large WP:TRIVIA section, and fails our notability requirements because it is sourced only to the show itself. It is also overflowing with WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Tosh.0. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - no indication that any individual segment or the overall concepts of segments of this series are notable separately or together. No one will ever search for this term so there is no need to redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This is a fork of the Tosh.0 page (can be found at this revision) and clearly is meant to parallel the Recurring segments on The Colbert Report article. Fishal (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. Would be better on something like TVTropes. Bob talk 01:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony DeNiro

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

I apologize if this seems like a cleanup-AfD, but I'm not an expert on the topic at all. At least my google-search gave me a barrage of sources that I cannot evaluate for WP:RS. Bottom-line is, this thing has been tagged as unreferenced (BLP) since 2008 and no-one seems to have cared. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I'm on the way to bed, but a quick search found lots of sources. It appears this article just needs some major cleanup, wikification, and work. Bhockey10 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep. I can't find much information about this person, but when this article was up for speedy deletion a couple of years ago, I did find this article which I added as a reference to indicate that there is some substance to the article. The article may need to be cut down to limit the content to what can be reliably sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment The subject clearly appears notable, but with no references to back up any of the claims made, such as "branding" hip hop and R&B stars and being a consultant to "award shows." Article is in terrible shape for Misplaced Pages and will need a monumental effort at cleanup to keep. Notability does not appear to be an issue, however there are no verifiable sources listed to prove such claims. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Delete ArticleThis is not a poorly-sourced article rather it is an article that lacks sourcing at all. The one reference supplied is weak at best and doesn't offer much in confirming any of the claims for the subject of this article. Looking at some of the information athletic information, I was able to confirm that some of the accomplishments listed in regards to the subject are untrue and am more than willing to post for reference. So if the authors of this article stand by these claims, they need to provide valid sources that back them up.Analyzerwiki 01 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete If no improvement takes place bringing the article up to Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Betina Suárez

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

Unclear notability, unsourced with a quick google not revealing any useful ones immediately Falcon8765 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete Appears notable, but article is a mess, non encyclopedic, improper format, no references, and so on. Needs major restructuring to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Beverly Hope Atkinson

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

IMDB is not a reliable source. Need more evidence of notability. -- φ OnePt618 φ 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment How about this?This brief mention in the New York Times took about three seconds to locate. Subject has done stage, film and television for decades. The article needs work, not deletion. Evalpor (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep The evidence toward notability is in the Find sources above. That they are not IN the article is a reason to add them, as they are available... but not to delete because someone else had not done so. Schmidt, 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody else getting to it? Okay... I'll work on it myself. Schmidt, 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Actress on many TV shows in the 60's and 70's, including Sanford and Son. I think having been on Sanford and Son is enough to keep the article. Sanford and Son was a great show and everyone on the show should have an article, especially Aunt Esther. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- We do have an article about Aunt Esther in addition to the article about LaWanda Page who played that character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a terrible shame if Misplaced Pages didn't have an article on Esther. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

What does Aunt Esther have to do with this nomination? (By the way, Nighteen Nightmares, consider reading WP:INHERITED.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Scripture in Song

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

Contested PROD - Non notable record company, fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nissan Pennzoil NISMO GT-R

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

Article appears to be written by someone who is basing their information on the video game Gran Turismo. A car sponsored by Pennzoil did compete in a racing series, and this car in this paint scheme did appear in video games, but there is nothing in particular that makes this race car different or unique compared to other identical cars which competed in this series. None of the information in the article is correct and it appears to not actually discuss anything about the real car, rather introducing statistics from mentioned video game. The5₉ (Talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE for closing admin: Not that this is the best place, but this particular associated file would be best deleted as well since Google Images is most certainly not Public Domain. The5₉ (Talk) 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Either delete or convert to a redirect to Gran Turismo (series). Does not warrant a stand alone article for sure. Delete the image and the license information is misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. JForget 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Technology evangelism

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

I don't think this should be a separate article from Technology evangelist. I propose redirecting it, or making it into a disambiguation page between Technology evangelist and Platform evangelism. - EdoDodo 08:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Author's response (JimPlamondon)

If I were *done* with the article Technology evangelism, I would agree entirely. However, it is essentially a stub, having been started just before I began a separate project. I expect to get back to it in min-July 2010.

In brief, the distinction between Technology Evangelism and Platform Evangelism stems from the difference between one-sided platforms (such as a text editor) and a two-sided platform (such as a text-editor that supports specialized plug-ins produced by third-party software vendors). Both kinds of platforms can create network effects; on both platforms, these effects can be both direct (among users) and indirect (among users and vendors of complementary goods such as test-editor-specific training materials). However, the differences in pricing structures and platform access are quite different. Consider, for example, Apple's recent ban on the use, in iOS apps sold through its AppStore, of any non-Apple-approved APIs. This makes perfect sense for a two-sided platform (like the iOS), but would make no sense at all for a one-sided platform.

You'll note that my article on Platform Evangelism refers frequently to the pre-existing article on two-sided platforms. I realized, after starting to write the Technology evangelism article, that it needed to refer to a similar article on one-sided platforms, which did not yet exist. I need to write this supporting article, and one on multi-sided markets, and a article to connect them all, to make sense of the whole thing.

Also, I expect to add a section to the Technology evangelism article that references historical examples, such as the War of the Currents, the battle over rail gauges, color television, etc. Many industries start with such an evangelism battle, then settle down. Computing never settles down, due to Moore's Law. There are lots of references for these data points; it just needs to be summarized and cited.

Then, most of the content of the Technology evangelist article can be shifted over to the Technology evangelism article, with Technology evangelist being a very short stub saying that "Technology Evangelist (sometimes "Technical Evangelist") is a job title for someone who practices technology evangelism."

So, gimme a month, and I'll flesh it out. ;-) - Jim Plamondon (somewhat later on 27 June) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPlamondon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep for now and give the editor a month or two to improve it along the lines he suggests. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep for now I added and sourced a well known Technology Evangelist to the article. Frankly I don't see the need for the multiple articles either, so I'm leaning towards "merge" but I'll give the editor some time to work it out. It certainly is a real subject worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland

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

Novel which does not meet WP:NB or WP:GNG - it's a book in a series with no notability inherited from that series. Carolyn Keene is not an author but a pseudonym used by 10 or more authors, and the author of this novel is not considered notable enough to have an article for him/herself. Therefore, criterion 5 does not apply, and I don't see how it can meet any of the other criteria - there's very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge to the appropriate list of Nancy Drew novels. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't such a list, but Nancy Drew Mystery Stories serves a similar purpose. Claritas § 09:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Shahram Abdullah Zadeh

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

Very poorly sourced WP:BLP issues, created by possible sock of User:Saqib. Bringing here for discussion on whether to delete the page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I'm at a loss trying to understand how an article with references to The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Gulf News is so "very poorly sourced" as to merit deletion. Yes, there is some unsourced content, but that can simply be removed by normal editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and rewrite The present article grossly fails BLP, making the assumption of guilt, describing the alleged crimes in excessive detail, and relying of anonymous comments--even if reported in good newspapers. I note the actual articles in those sources are considerably fairer than our article. The best thing to do here is to delete entirely and start over--I might say keep and revise sharply, except it's a negative BLP written by a single purpose editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP. Could well be a G10 case - when I read the article I am of the view that it's sole purpose is to disparage the subject. Sourcing isn't enough for an article: it must be neutral and most importantly it cannot be allowed to attack its subject. So notwithstanding the sourcing, deletion is appropriate here. I agree with DGG that keeping it for a re-write is not appropriate. If someone wants to start afresh with a new BLP-compliant article, go for it.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Free Teens

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

This article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for corporations. There are no references of any kind on the article, and the only mentioning that I could find of this organization in the news was this article that listed it as a charity that received a grant. A web search shows no real coverage outside of its own website. Tjc₆ 14:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep. After a search on Google Books, I found these: NYCRuss ☎ 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep and possibly merge with Unification Church as it was founded to promote abstinence (a key UC value), albeit in a non-sectarian way. It's significant because it represents one of several organizations or campaigns to promote specific values or ideas usually associated with religion, but with the hope of doing so without making any attempt at religious conversion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While I in no way wish to imply that he's biased or not acting in good faith, I think it is worth mentioning that Uncle Ed above is a member of the Unification Church, and could be considered to have a WP:COI here. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Marginally notable organization, I'm sure it can be properly referenced given some time. If not then merge any relevant content with Unification Church, about which there is already a discussion here. -- œ 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the sources, a very minor organization, discussed only in connection with its Unification Church background. Actually, the present article is almost at the point of failing speedy deletion criterion G11 as entirely promotional. There is not really anything substantial worth merging beyond the basic facts of existence. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The most that could be justified is a mention on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, but I'm not sure if that would be appropriate as I'm not clear how official the links between them are. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete lacks coverage and reads like spam. Nuttah (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Caponigro

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

Puff piece for a non-notable person. A BLP PROD was removed but no substantial, reliable sources were added. There's a minor award from the U of Central Michigan, and that's it; board members of such a university are not automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yup... the "article" reads like a resume. However, news coverage from 1995 through 2010 would seem indicative that this article might be salvagable with a major rewrite. Schmidt, 03:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not quite finding the right kind of coverage to attempt a rewrite, but I will reserve judgement and see if anyone can work magic on it. Here's some sources I did find: Fences&Windows 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Following MichaelQSchmidt's cleanup, I think we can keep this. I think he just passes the GNG, and this isn't spammy now. Fences&Windows 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks... and I appreciate your pointing the way to possibilities. I also believe as well, that with a very very careful eye out for return of spam or unverifiable information, it is now worth keeping. Admittedly it was one of the more difficult articles to steam-clean... and if it were not for the long weekend, it might not have been done. Schmidt, 01:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  - Damn you, MQS, you West-Coast inclusionist. My evil plan foiled again! To any passing admin: Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from the nom JForget 00:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pink Turns Blue

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. This band have released at least 10 albums. The first was originally released on Rough Trade Records. I think these needs someone familiar with German pop music to judge - it seems highly unlikely that a band that has been around for so long and released so many albums will not have received 'multiple significant coverage in reliable sources'. The band's website states that their Ghost album reached #4 on the DAC chart, which appears to be the German Alternative Chart.--Michig (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

One album on an important indie label does not pass #5 on WP:BAND and the band's website is not a reliable third party source. Aspects (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment -"The Headliner" of the Festival are "Pink turns blue", which is for your appearance due to the successful entry their CD "Phoenix" in third place of the German Alternative Charts devised something special: they play exclusively a 100% concert. Translation quote from "Klassiker bringt Ruine zum Beben", Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, 13 August 2005 Same publication later says (translation) -So-called "Headliner" of the evening was "Pink turns blue", a Wave legend, which deals with her new Album "Phoenix"- for same? Festival "Friedliche Eroberung der alten Burgmauern", Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, 22 August 2005 duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Meets clearly Misplaced Pages:Notability (music), Criteria for musicians and ensembles points 1,4,5 and 7. --Florentyna (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Verifiably a band that has released many albums, headined festivals, etc. German coverage is as good as any.--Michig (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 07:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Review

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Three albums on Grover Records and one on Moon Ska Records should be sufficient for criterion #5 of WP:BAND. Unsurprisingly for a Dutch band, most coverage is not in English, e.g. Google News, though there is some coverage from English-language music sites: .--Michig (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Grover Record is not a major label or one of the more important indie labels, in fact it does not even have a Misplaced Pages article, so one compilation album on an important indie label does not pass #5 on WP:BAND and In Music We Trust is not a reliable source. Aspects (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a record label has a Misplaced Pages article is totally irrelevant. Grover has a long enough history of releasing albums by notable artists (Laurel Aitken, Derrick Morgan, Doreen Shaffer, The Skatalites, Rico Rodriguez, etc.) to be considered important enough for this criterion. It's one of the major modern European ska labels.--Michig (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would expect a major independent label to have its own Misplaced Pages article. Grover not having its own Misplaced Pages article just furthers my belief that it is not a major independent label. Aspects (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of bands and musicians and hundreds of record labels that I would expect to have articles on Misplaced Pages, but don't, because WP is still a work in progress and there's lots more work to do. Grover has been around for over a decade with an impressive list of international artists in their catalogue. Would I expect a German ska label to have an article on the English Misplaced Pages at WP's current stage of development? Probably not.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment there is Lars, Von (25 February 1999), "Musik für Sonnenblumenträger", taz - die tageszeitung (in German)

"Ska-Party im "Stone": "Mr. Review" dreht auf", Rheinische Post Dinslaken (in German), 28 December 2005 this says -Mr . Review alias Rude And Visser-

Others say things like Rude & Visser aka Mr . Review or Die Band Rude & Visser, besser bekannt unter dem Namen Mr. Review. Are they the same band still?

eg "RUDE & VISER, EL DÍA SIGUIENTE DE MR. REVIEW.", El Periódico de Catalunya (in Spanish), 28 March 2003 duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. JForget 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lowell Mick White

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. He's published two critically well-received books by reputable publishers, has won an important fellowship, has strong history of performance and teaching.He canine (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment – I see nothing in the article that points to the notability of the books. Even if that were the case, the books might be notable, but I see nothing that supports the writer's notability per Misplaced Pages guidelines. There is nothing in the article supports the assertion that he won a significant award. ttonyb (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep He's published fiction in several leading journals (Callaloo, Concho River, Antietam); some of the other publications are puff, but that shouldn't take away from the significance of the more notable work. Gival is also a well-respected independent publisher, not some second-rate pamphleteer or self-pub mill, which also strongly suggests notability in the field. Vartanza (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak Keep as required by the GNG guideline--there are 2 acceptable 3rd party articles at least about him and his work. The keep is only a weak one because I think he is not yet notable. One of the two books is just a collection of previously published stories, and he has not actually won any awards. I think we should stop using the GNG and insist on actual notability in some objective fashion according to the field. Neither of his two books are in any way notable, being held by only a few libraries (<10).The author of a notable book is notable, though,because what fundamentally makes an author notable is having published notable works--what else could he be notable for as an author? The references used to support the notability of the books will always support the author also. Even authors who have not written a notable book can be notable as an author on other bases, as he would be if his work were included in major anthologies. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep Subject is a published, known author. Notability is established, though the article needs a good reworking for form and Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Peters (blogger)

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

This page needs to be revamped from scratch, beginning with its name, if it should exist at all. As several users have expressed, Thomas Peters does not meet the notability criteria for a living person. One of the sources ("The Catholic Club) only mention Peters and his blog in order to discredit Peters for having petty debates on his blog. This is a strike against his notability, not a credit towards it. Other sources are lesser known blogs with one comment or less on average (such as St. Michael Society), not showing significant coverage. Still others are not independent but are affiliates promoting Peters' blog (such as the Catholic Vote Action link, St. Michael Society link, etc.). This issue leads to a greater problem. If the page is to be rewritten -- and I'm not sure it should -- the page should be about Peters' blog itself (American Papist) with Peters maybe meriting a subsection and his name redirecting to the blog Misplaced Pages entry. Alternatively, the page could be deleted outright and recreated on a sister Wiki rather than Misplaced Pages. Darthoutis (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The persons notability is doubtful, and in any case the article name is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep, Rename, Rewrite A significant topic, but an article that should be about the blog, not the blogger. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep . the references are enough to support the importance of the blog, but as he has done a few more things than the blog, the article should be on him. This is always a dilemma, and I think we should always incline to the person, about whom there is more likely to be additional importance in the future & so the opportunity to develop the article. 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion would benefit from an evaluation of specific sources. I've already identified examples of the problematic sources, which either don't show significant coverage or are not independent sources but affiliates promoting Peters and his blog.Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Peters' isolated appearances on a couple of cable news interviews are insufficient to meet Misplaced Pages's allowance for people likely to remain high profile. Although Misplaced Pages does grant notability to people with a short history of coverage, that liberty only applies under condition that the subject already has a high profile. Peters himself, nor his blog, has ever been the subject of any major news stories, and I'm not sure Peters' appearances as a consultant for a couple of cable TV interviews count as high profile. The more I think about this, the more I believe this page (whether about Peters or his blog) better belongs on a sister Wiki, which is more conducive to specialized subjects. If Peters or his blog ever does become notable for a general encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages, we can always recreate his page. That is what deletion review is for when "new significant information comes to light and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." (see criterion #3 under "Principal purpose").Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages does not condone articles on bloggers. Not notable. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I'm not sure if this guy is notable, but some bloggers certainly are: see Category:Bloggers. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed, a few TV appearances as a minor pundit do not constitute coverage of Peters, and therefore are not evidence of notability. I doubt the blog is notable either. -- Chonak (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)