Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 21

< 20 August	22 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna as gay icon

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

Original research. This is honestly one of the worst offenders of the original research rule I've seen in a long time, a perfect example of the kind of "synthesis" we forbid on Wikipedia. It's a long, long string of facts and observations strung together to advance a position. — TheBilly^(Talk) 10:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position of her being a gay icon is well-known and notable. Of the many sources and lists of her as a top gay icon, it was even in a book. She is open about it as well. The article has a lot of referencing issues but it shouldn't be deleted. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly, from the sources cited in the article, her relationship with the gay community is notable. I think a better title would be "Madonna and the gay community" or "Madonna and homosexuality." No need for WP to say that she is an "icon," whatever that means. I am sure that not every gay person is a fan. (And did anyone notice that madonna -- Madonna (art) that is -- and icon are very related in meaning, not that that's a reason to keep or delete this article.) Borock (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entirely reasonable spinout article from Madonna (entertainer). Madonna's status as a gay icon is well-established and well-documented, dating back at least to her 1991 interview with The Advocate. The article is not in the greatest shape but reviewing sister articles Judy Garland as gay icon and Janet Jackson as gay icon shows that articles under this naming convention are sustainable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above, especially by Cow of Pain and Norty Nort; and as I shall note. The main article is far too long, and this article merely needs cleanup and other issues fixed. WP:AfD is not for fixing an article that can be fixed through the ordinary editing process. Bearian'sBooties 01:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep similar articles like this one, such as Judy Garland; referenced. This is also well known and notable. Tommy! [message] 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the claims to notability are unsupportable by reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Morgan Sweeney

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

No reliable sources, no evidence of any notability whatsoever on Google. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If he is the software architect of the first credit card authorization system, then he is clearly notable and is part of computing history like Turing and Cerf. Finding good sources will be critical. scope_creep (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim is rather dubious. And doubly so when there are absolutely no sources to back it up. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete search of sources found nothing under "Francis Morgan Sweeney" or "Francis Sweeney" that could be identified as relating to the claims in this article, although it looked like it might be possible to create a "Francis Sweeny (judge)" and "Francis Sweeny (artist)" article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, therefore fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Hell Retreats

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

Limited notability might not make it past WP:BAND Eeekster (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete touring with another act doesn't make you inherently notable if you otherwise fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a quick google search doesnt throw up anything of worth on this band also no coverage on allmusic.com. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note that I can see. Peridon (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Fox

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

selfwritten vanity nn, no indication of notability beyond other businessmen Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in CNN Money, Business week as listed in the article. At the very least, this would be a merge to Internet Capital Group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is not my area of expertise but there seem to be plenty of sources explicitly referring to this guy. Nergaal (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better sourced than most, and many of the significant sources (Fortune, Business Week) are actually ABOUT him rather than the usual trivial mention. I never heard of the guy but that's not a criterion here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Phillip

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

Fails WP:Academic; only published two papers (one as NH Phillip). Autobiographical too! Chris (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own Google scholar searches match the nominator's statement about the paucity of his publications. He does not pass WP:PROF#C1 nor, it seems, does he pass any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. Also, as the nominator notes, the article was created by User:Nphillip91, so looks to be a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

454 Life Entertainment

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

Record label. The creator claims that, since the label has big projects whose existence can be verified from its website, it is notable. That would violate WP:CRYSTAL, which is very clear in that the reliable third-party coverage must come before the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. Currently, Google News returns nothing. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - SPA generated cruff. Racepacket (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator claims "the media has not gotten around to cover them." tedder (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. After reviewing her article and the associated refs, I think she clearly deserves an article. Her modelling career may not be much yet, but the furvor over her winning the title in 2007 is significant. Looks as if her winning the gold coast event sparked a movement which resulted in a change in the laws in Australia. This is significant and her role in that change was more than marginal.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maddison Gabriel

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

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

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

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

Suspect notability. Article has the refs, but as it's been noted in two PRODs, the refs only point to the subject being known for a single news item three years ago. A quick check of her Fashion Model Directory profile shows she has done literally nothing since then. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completly fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Has signed with Elite, one of the World's biggest modeling agencies, has been the subject of articles from all around the world (see references) and even caused the Australian prime minister to comment on the situation. She is NOT known for a single news item. She is known for being the face of Gold Coast Fashion week at 12 years old, but also for signing for Elite Models. 24.122.11.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep She also made the news again after being "stalked" by an American convict who requested pictures of her by writing to a newspaper. And by the way, this model was the subject of comments by the prime minister of Australia AND the leader of the opposition. She made the news numerous times and is one of modeling's rising star. So this deletionist nonsense must stop NOW Terveetkadet (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a young article and should probably be userfied rather than deleted entirely.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 07:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Absolutely zero notability. Being stalked is not encyclopedic as we're WP:NOTNEWS. There are thousands of 12 year old models, ho-hum. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was the subject of articles all around the world for the Gold Coast Week, for signing with Elite after being courted by all the big modeling agencies and her mother also commented heavily in the media because of the stalker thing. Like Monika Jagaciak, she is a very important person, especialy in the context of a better understanding of the issues related to age and modeling since many fashion festivals now forbid models below 16 on runways but still, agencies still hire 12, 13 and 14 years old models. 207.134.167.39 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And she may not be THAT well-known in the U.S. yet but she sure is in Australia and New Zealand, where she is regularly featured in magazines and newspaper articles. 207.134.167.39 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more info AND references have been added showing that she has been active in modeling AND acting since 2007. She has been featured in many Australian magazines and other magazines in Europe too and is in a Bryan Ferry video. This article has been enhanced and can be enhanced again in the future Terveetkadet (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has international recognition, and multiple independent sources. Turgan ^Talk 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep is used in Australian schools as a source of reference for English Essays on self esteeme and has even had reference made to her in Journalistic studies at Griffith University on the Gold Coast. Has had "facebook" pages made from young fans in the USA. Young girls around the world actually still try to contact her and are interested in her continued growth. User:Michelle Gabriel 12.00pm 23rd August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that signing someone else's name is a no-no. These WP:SPA's and possible WP:SOCKs are far too amazing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of who??? That seems crazy but User:Michelle Gabriel's IP is actually from Australia, on the Gold Coast. I'm a bit sceptic because of the writing errors, especialy in the name Tugun (which was incorrectly written Tugan) but that actually might be her mother or someone close to her because on the info she gave, including the school that she attends now, which seems to be exact with the checks I made today Terveetkadet (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am her mother. I suffer from dyslexia and sometimes spell things wrong, Just looked up her passport - you are right it is spelt Tugun! I've always spelts it Tugan. Sorry for my mistake. You also Spelt "Sidney" wrong which I corrected which is Sydney. What else do you want for me to prove I am her mother? My full name is Michelle Carolynne Gabriel, my maiden name is Kortum. I come from Melbourne originally and moved to the Gold Coast over 20 years ago. I don't know how to use this very well but thought it was wroth showing you my IP address so you could see I am from Gold Coast Australia - to try to prove who I am. You can also check me out on Facebook, where I have Maddi as one of my friends and also a hoax Maddi that I am trying to talk into deleting (she is a 13yo from USA, who is also now a friend also) Sorry I can't spell:-) I am trying to help make sure this is all correct information. User:Michelle Gabriel - Maddi's Mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, Mrs Gabriel, I truly appreciate your contributions, as it helps make the page more complete and you have info that most of us don't have access to. I am not the person who became angry at your comments Terveetkadet (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terveeetkadet, I finally found out what sockpuppet meant! And thank you for your words. I really was only trying to help and make things correct as I am sure it is helpful if Wikipedia has correct information as so many kids use it for references for their school work these days. If there are other questions you have (just as long as they are not to personal) we are willing to answer them. Also if you want more up to date photo's too, we can supply (if someone explains how!) Sorry that the other person doesn't think I am a real person. I am, I can assure you! I also do not like people pretending to be others! Anyway hopefully the information I have supplied helps and sorry I don't edit well and correct my spelling and bad typing as well as I should (you should see my texting capabilities!) User:Michelle Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT. Only notable for being in the news and nothing else. (Possibly two events, including the later stalking incident but still not news.) Modeling career not notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(changed to comment) Her career is not noteable yet, due to the fact that Australia changed the age to 16 for models because of her starting to model at 13. Other models have lied about their age to be able to model before 16 but as she was known she couldn't and wouldn't lie about her age. For a 15 yo she has travelled and worked on three continents, has been asked to also model in China, Malayasia and Japan but hasn't due to finishing school. This is the start of a career that will continue and in the next few years potentially blossom. Both Fashion in Italy and Storm in London wanted her to give up school to model full time as they can see her potential, however she has decided to continue school for the next year. After than she will then model full time and from what all the agents say has a potential of a very long career ahead of her. This information now is pertanant to many who are still following her career. Many teenage girls look up to her and see her as a potential and role model for them. Michelle Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.34.214 (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as this is a second "keep" !vote by the same IP (I'm sure it's by accident WP:AGF, I've changed it to a comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Gold Coast Fashion Week thing, the other contest she won, the fact she signed for Elite, the fact she models on many continents, the fact that she has worked for many agencies and posed in many magazines, the fact that she appears in a Bryan Ferry video, the fact that she has been the subject of articles from independent sources all around the world makes her notable not only in Australia but internationnaly. Meets the criteria for notability more than what's asked for... 207.134.167.39 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If her career, per your admission, is not notable yet (not to mention she's more concerned with being a student), she shouldn't have an article; notability is not based on what might happen in the future. Also, if a debate is relisted, you don't need to vote again. To 207.134.167.39: the significant coverage is all related to the news items. Her career is sourced entirely to a talent directory and a page created by an agency, and all they verify is a trio of editorials—which is entirely unremarkable. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbinebri ^{talk ←} I hope you understood that User:Michelle Gabriel is not familiar with Wikipedia and that her last comments don't mean that she agrees that Maddison Gabriel doesn't fit the notability guidelines. She's just trying her best to help improve this page. MANY notable teenage models now model part-time, especially in Australia because of the recent regulations about young models on catwalks and both Maddison Gabriel and Monika Jagaciak are important for the understanding of that issue. Many teenage models or athletes are doing it part time too cause school is important to them. Should they be declared «not notable» because school is important to them? I don't think so. Maddison has been featured in many publications in Australia and all around the world and is in a Bryan Ferry video, she has also been signed by Elite models, those items have nothing to do with the news item you keep coming back with. There are people who are known only for being in an Internet meme and who have their Wikipedia pages. I respectfully think that Maddison Gabriel is not less notable than the Numa Numa Guy 207.134.167.39 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't slip into the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument...that only has one outcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk→ BWilkins ←track)I think I explained my point of view in a respectful manner and I never qualified any article of being «crap» so I don't understand why you use those words and that tone 207.134.167.39 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the linked essay, or just fail to assume good faith from the start? What the essay means is that just because we might have articles about internet meme's (which probably should not exist), do not use it as an argument about another article existing - giving that argument typically is the death knell for any article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Peterson

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

No notability. Ran for office once, and all sources are from then. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A PolitiFact fact-check and TIME Newsfeed both called one of his ads the "best campaign ad ever." In a Google search for best campaign ad ever, his ad is the first video result, and the subject of 3 of the first 4 web results.Wharrel (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ran for a single low-level state-wide election and lost in the primary. Fails WP:Politician. Having a mention in the TIME Newsfeed isn't sufficient to remedy that. --Crunch (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in Hell

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

Non-notable band. No sources provided and I can't find any either. If you're interested, look through the article history before I got to it--but you may not find anything there that makes this band notable, not even the pyrotechnics mishap or the bathroom 'incident'. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per 7th notability criteria for bands (Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But can we even verify that fact? Drmies (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails almost all criteria for bands, except #7, which isn't verifiable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Band features three notable members and is important in since that's where the people who would later form Cinderella started. Terveetkadet (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimately this assertion needs verification, which is lacking. Good-faith attempts to do so seem to have failed. I'm not advocating one way or the other, pending further research, but at the same time, if it's unverifiable, it needs to go. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember reading about Saints in Hell and the "bathroom incident" in Circus Magazine back in the day in some articles related to Cinderealla but can't find the magazine... Will post the references if I get ahold of it. It's likely that there is more print sources available that haven't been made available online given the era in which the band were active. 24.122.252.160 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added some references... In the circumstances of a band from 1980, 1981, 1982, I think it's good. More references exist in printed metal magazines from the '80's. If you have them, post them. Cause this band is notable for featuring many future members of Cinderella and Britny Fox. 24.122.252.160 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidacne of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^speak 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. Clearly not notable. Article is completely unwikified and reads like a copyvio. SnottyWong ^speak 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Resume Parser

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

Deprodding. Even though this particular piece of software might not be notable, I think there should be an article about this general type of software; if such an article exists, then I recommend merging instead. In either case, I seek consensus before deletion. Bwrs (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few sources that I have found seem to focus more on the company that makes and distributes the software and less on the software itself. And none of those sources seem to provide much in the way of notability --Dlrohrer 2003 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find much but advertisements. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a type of software product thats not generally known to even the computing fraternity, of which i'm one. Its a highly specialized software type that's as far as your run of the mill database or word processor as is a Tiger is to a Canary. As such I think that establishes notability, and the article should be kept and expanded. scope_creep (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being obscure does not make a subject notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Primeval. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval (Series Four)

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

Sourced only to wikia, crystal ball rumors. I removed a gigantic plot summary that seems absurd for a series which hasn't even started filming yet. The editor who created this article has a history of reporting rumors as fact, and is repeatedly reverted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the first three series already broadcast have separate articles, all are included in Primeval or List of Primeval episodes. In any case, there is no information about Series 4 beyond a commitment to make it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primeval. Icalanise (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Sexey

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

He was a successful local businessman, but does he rise to notability? I don't think he's Sexey enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is an honorable presentation of an individual's life, notability is neither indicated nor established through the content or sources provided. It appears that available sources are genealogical forums fleshing out the ancestry and descendancy of members of the subject's family. Cindamuse (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an excellent example of a time when it is best to Apply Common Sense — that is, in Wikipedia jargon, to Ignore All Rules. This is a fine little historical biography. Deleting it would needlessly destroy information and would accomplish nothing of value. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tend to agree with Carrite - what good would deleting it do? It's not promotional in any way, and is the kind of nugget that adds a lot of unquantifiable value to Wikipedia. ///—Brichcja/// 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. As Sexey as Sexey could be. Even if Oliphant's story of runaway kids is a legend, it already made it into mainsteram literature. However, I am concerned with OR and copyright - this reads like something lifted from a heritage club website. East of Borschov 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a copyright issue here. I just Google searched 5 unique phrases in the article and got clean returns to the WP article or pages derived from the WP article (AskJeeves, etc.). The issue here is one of verifiability — it's not footnoted right. Is that reason enough to kill it? Not a BLP, so technically no. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apart from what is said above, it records early pakeha history of New Zealand when there weren't many Europeans around, and nothing much was recorded. For that reason alone, it's worth keeping.
comment - it would appear that on 8 April 2007 this article was deleted once before, as per this entry. Looking at the article's history, it was recreated the following day as 'Charles E Sexey' (i.e. without the full stop after the middle initial) and moved in 2008 to its current (and previous) article name. Schwede 66 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above comment, content looks to be copied from previously deleted article. No additional sources and only minor additional content which adds nothing to justify the article. Seems like an attempt to get around a deletion of an insufficiently notable individual. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Original research (reference citations such as "US Census for 1860 and 1870 listing Charles Sexey" and "Marysville Library for newspaper index references to Charles Sexey"). Non-neutral ("What is tragic about this (estate) judgement is that those who were entitled to receive the money, Charles Sexey’s four children in New Zealand, never received a penny of their father’s wealth or ever derived any benefit from it."). Although the subject is claimed to be an important citizen of Marysville, California, he is not mentioned in the article about Marysville. It's not a hoax - there are a few online sources [1] [2] that give him a bare mention in connection with Marysville - but overall his significance is not established. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind to Weak keep. I decided that my "original research" comment is mistaken. The author consulting references like the census and the library, is not really original research; it is establishing sources. This guy may not have been the most important citizen any of the places he lived, but he left a trail of achievement that is not trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn). utcursch | talk 04:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaba Gandhi No Delo

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

Article is about, I think, a museum for where Gandhi stayed for a small part of his life. Per WP:INHERIT, this does not, in and of itself, make the museum notable. Without independent reliable sources asserting notability, article should be deleted per WP:V and WP:N. Note that article creator is making a series of articles about this town, others of which have also been flagged for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough to be one of the main attractions in Rajkot. [3][4][5] Like Beethoven House, a place can become notable if related to an iconic figure. And at least one reliable source calls it Ghandi's "ancestral home", not just a place "where Gandhi stayed for a small part of his life." [6] What the article creator has been doing with other articles has nothing to do with the notability of this one. (I see that the article was created by an anon in 2005 who only had three edits total, so I'm not sure what the nom is talking about here anyway.) --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With at least 50 mentions in books and magazines, this seems to be a notable museum. utcursch | talk 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Personally, I don't think guide books are reliable sources, but I've seen them used in other articles. As such, I withdraw the AfD, and this can be closed. It would be great if someone actually added these references to the article (I won't be doing so myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS - Superb Mini Server

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

PRODed for "Despite massive gHits, I couldn't find any book, news, or any reference which provided any more than trivial coverage." PROD was removed by initial author (and single purpose account) User:Gerasimos h with no reason stated.

User:Gerasimos h also present a conflict of interest as he appears to have a stake in software: (look at the bottom of the page) [7] [8].

Deletion nomination is for lack of notability. Odie5533 (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one hit in Gnews, but just not notable; therefore per nom. Dewritech (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Massive ghits but most seem to be download sites/etc. WP:N/Per nom. Would need to be moved to Superb Mini Server anyways, yes? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan_Candiotti

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

Subject is not notable. No biographical sources. Cookiehead (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is poorly written and lacks sources. This does not mean the subject is not notable. Candiotti is a national correspondent for CNN and has a long history with the network. The fact that she "has received nine regional Emmy awards and an Associated Press award for investigative reporting" should more than meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Crunch (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National correspondents for news networks are always notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added above ref to satisfy BLP criteria for inclusion. Subject clearly notable. Cindamuse (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - national news correspondent, google books shows many many mentions, as well as many on google news. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Gallagher_(journalist)

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

Article is about one incident (Chiquita) and is not biographical. Subject appears otherwise not notable Cookiehead (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here as it involves a story that opened a can of worms involving journalistic ethics, a large corporation suing to neuter a story and a major American newspaper making an unheard of apology about a story and removing those responsible. The article is well-cited and there is no cause for deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle or Merge As both the nominator and the "keep" advocate said above, this article is not about the reporter but about the incident. If there is not already an article on it then retitle this one. An alternative is to make it a section in the main article on Chiquita. Borock (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split. I think his biography is notable enough for a single article. Remove the BLP information and create a separate article for him. Once that is done, rename the present article to suitable name, then cleanup, wikify and link.scope_creep (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew H. Cohen

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

Subject is not notable. Cookiehead (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - need independent secondary sources, more than incidental coverage. Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather empty little stub bio that does not demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

The Acacia Strain

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

This article has no sources (and if none exists, does not meet WP:GNG), and none of the unsourced content indicates that the group meets WP:MUSIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, this nomination is illegitimate. If the previous people who worked on the article failed to add sources, that is a reason for others to expand and improve the article, and NOT a reason for deletion. The nominator also said "if none exists" (key word is IF) meaning that he/she didn't do good-faith research before nominating. These are all obvious violations of #1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of WP:BEFORE, making this whole AfD useless except for the fact that now the rest of us know the article needs improvement. As for this band, they have an acceptable level of coverage at AllMusic, where the Charts & Awards tab notes their several placements on the charts, a fact that is easily verifiable at Billboard. I also found a few other sources and added them to the article, plus a few edit and cleanup tags, which didn't take much more time than writing this vote. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of what Doomsdayer520 says above has coverage on allmusic.com and have released on a significant record label. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree that the nomination was illegitimate. The article has existed for over 10 months. In all that time, no legitimate source has been added. Articles may not stand around unsourced on Wikipedia forever. Adding tags is helpful when new information is added that can likely be sourced, but this information was not new. The only legitimate part of WP:BEFORE (which I do not believe has the force of policy, as it does not match what WP:DEL, the actual policy, says) is #9. #1 is untrue, #2 doesn't apply (this article is not a stub, has not recently been vandlized, etc.), #3 blatantly contradicts WP:V and WP:BLP (that is, no one has to choose to use tags rather than remove unverified information; had I removed the unverified info, nothing would have been left in the article), #9 I violated, and #10 doesn't apply (this is not a recently created article). In any event, the AfD did what no one bothered to do for over a year--make this article follow the core WP:V and WP:BLP policies. That means, in my opinion, that nominating for AfD was the correct approach. As such I now...
Withdraw the nomination: With the addition of new sources, the band now appears to meet WP:MUSIC. I still question whether it meets WP:GNG, but apparently the community has somehow decided that WP:MUSIC's far lest stringent criteria trump WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REWIND (film

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

PROD contested by author. A film that has not even been officially announced yet. No indication of who is making it or who is in it. Speculative, unreferenced and unverifiable. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to qualify as a speedy. In all likelihood, it's the author's personal project or a hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as waaaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What can I really say, it has no sources, it's 2 years too early, it's not even stub class. For all intents and purposes it's an article about a subject that does not exist. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. --Stickee (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete film that has yet to be released or verified. The name doesn't help in searching. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gell

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

Essentially BLP1E. Only known for a single event and has not been known for anything since then not related to that single event. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A freed death row inmate is highly notable, especially when the article has plenty of reliable sources. This article (that I have never edited) should be a part of this encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tostada. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alan Gell was a BLP1E upon his conviction and subsequent capitol sentence. Being exonerated while on death row definitely qualifies as a second event.My76 Strat 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BLP1E is inappropriate: I agree with My76Strat that the conviction was (arguably) just one event, but the legal and constitutional ramifications of his exoneration are far greater than that. "One event" does not adequately describe its attributable significance. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SteveStrummer Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Chef

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

Non-notable DJ, All sources are either self published or about a documentary that "featured" him. Ridernyc (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to say keep here as Chef is an important player in the dubstep scene, but the coverage is probably not sufficient for an article. I found these, in case anyone can add any more: XLR8R, New York Magazine (describing him as a 'scene heavyweight'), Radio Srbija.--Michig (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied (I just added a bit using the XLR8R reference; the Austrian TV interview linked in the article also adds to the notability evidence.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a 21 year old disk jockey. There is not enough independent secondary coverage from reliable sources to justify inclusion. Racepacket (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Lopresti

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Lopresti

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

This subject does not meet notability standards. Being mentioned in your local newspaper and having an IMDB profile does not make you notable. Hundreds of filmmakers win awards every year - most of which do not have Wikipedia pages - that's what IMDB is for. Not Wikipedia. Slyforeman (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Slyforeman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am always concerned when a nomination begins with a WP:WAX argument such as "other award-winners don't have articles so why should this one?" And then we have a dismissive comparison of IMDB and Wikipedia... like comparing apples and oranges. It's a non-argument, as no one asserts that being on IMDB gives any sort of notability. A person can receive an IMDB credit by providing such inglorious tasks as craft services or driving a crew van or performing go-fer services... just so long as production deems fit to give the individual an on-screen credit. So what? On Wikipedia notability is dependent on something more than simply doing a task and being listed. Here, if someone recieves coverage for their works and awards, they might be determined notable. And it is also worth pointing out that Miami New Times... is not some backwoods gazette... as a newspaper in Miami would be expected to report on news in Miami... and is not exactly "your local newspaper" for someone who now lives in Brooklyn, New York.... so it seems a few "facts" in this nomination are being just a teeny bit skewed. Does the article need cleanup? Yes. Does it need more sourcing? Yes. But if such prove to be surmountable issues, they are not cause for deletion. I am also always concerned when the very first edits ever by a brand new editor are to begin a deletion nomination.[9] Nice that this newcomer is jumping right in... and AGF is AGF, yes... but please forgive me, as this one strains just a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is an actor, producer, writer, director, and composer. He has created and established a body of work, which includes involvement in over 17 films or television programs. He has also written, directed, and produced a feature-length film. As such, he meets the criteria of WP:CREATIVE Cindamuse (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient body of work to merit inclusion. I echo the misgivings of Michael Schmidt expressed above over the fact that this AfD challenge is the very first action of a new WP account. The vendetta duck is quacking. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's had an IMDB profile for almost a decade, so an established actor, clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J8ded

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - completely meets WP:WEB; a google search turns up 15,500 results, at least three of which are independent print publications running articles on this show (including but not limited to The Cincinnati Examiner, The Middletown Journal, and The Star-Ledger (New Jersey). Completely meets WP:GNG; these sources address the series directly and in detail, are reliable regional newspapers, and have no affiliation with the series. Article also does not fall into WP:NOT. Series stars multi-platinum-selling recording artist, which only adds to notability and interest/importance. CouplandForever (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of reprints of press releases and some local "this guy says he's gonna be on the show" stuff. Google hits are not a measure of notability. The attachment of a particular person to the project does not make the series notable as notability is not inherited. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP is not an advertising platform. scope_creep (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly refute your reasoning here. There is nothing about the content of this article the way it is currently written that indicates it is utilizing Wikipedia as an attempt to promote or advertise the topic. CouplandForever (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Belgium-related articles

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

This is a massive list of articles "related to Belgium." Isn't this what we have categories for? No one will randomly type in the article title, so the categorization method should suffice for easy of navigation Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angola-related topics. This article is very usefull to the Belgium-interested editors and cannot be replaced by the Belgium Category. 07:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.69.237 (talk)

Keep Lists and categories work hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. This is an obvious aid to navigation and is part of the larger scheme Category:Indexes of articles by country Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at WhatLinksHere suggests to me that although the nom is correct that probably nobody would type this article's title in, it is being put to good use in links. I believe Lugnuts is correct that this has a place in ease of navigation of an obviously expansive group of topics. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The precedent for this article was established with the resolution of a mass deletion request associated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angola-related topics. While that decision may be reasonably be revisited with another mass deletion request and debate, it seems like this is now a settled matter and there is no rationale for singling out this particular country-specific navigation tool. My own view is that it is of limited worth, outside of helping to prevent automatic orphan tags. But the ruling standing on such articles is "KEEP ALL" and we should respect that here. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and Carrite. We must respect settled precedent, or ~~courts~~ WP:AfD will get overwhelmed time and time again. Bearian'sBooties 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McWilliams

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

I can't find enough coverage on this songwriter and producer. Claims of awards but these claims aren't verified, and the only sources I can find name him as a co-winner (way down a list). Notability is not inherited from the people he has worked with, and this article remains an unsourced BLP. I may be missing something, and am more than willing to withdraw the nom if sources can be provided to prove his notability, but at the moment recommending deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE/WP:MUSICBIO and nomination Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T2 SDE

AfDs for this article:

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

I G4'd it, but there's a claim sufficient sources are available, so I'm sending for another AfD. I personally have no opinion about the notability at this point. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concerns from first AfD have not been addressed, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent sources of this product. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a potential reference for those looking for distribution build tools, the article is ideal. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a WP:ITSUSEFUL based argument, the issue is that it does not appear to be notable. Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from Exactcode.com, the sources used are download sites and forums. I wasn't able to locate anything else. Exactcode.com looked promising at first, but turned out to be a primary source as the software's main sponsor (or perhaps the only one, I haven't checked). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominico Venetucci

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

Declined A7 speedy nominee, but still appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The man has been feeding 30k per year for 54 years and it does not make him notable. It maybe a curio, but clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But with no sources to substantiate that notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in the single secondary source is not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO. Much of the article remains unsourced. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Venetucci The Pumpkin Man was notable enough to have a statue of his likeness erected in Colorado Springs, Colorado — LINK. That's pretty darned good indication that we are dealing with a notable individual here. The article needs to be wikified and the footnotes put into form, but this is a case of "fix it — don't nix it." Carrite (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ANOTHER LINK for more on The Pumpkin Man. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that The Pumpkin Man is also namesake of a school in Colorado Springs. Another link. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one, a story on examiner.com on the Venetucci farm... All sorts of sources for The Pumpkin Man, regardless of the quality of the current article, he's very clearly over the notability bar... Carrite (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you craving something from the Mainstream Media, here's a story in the Colorado Springs Gazette: LINK. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm working... Carrite (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I'm out of gas for the evening. There are 3 separate mainstream news stories showing, as well as documentation that there is a statue in Venetucci's honor, a school named after him, and a beer named after him. The story in The Reader's Digest and coverage by Kuralt's "On the Road" remain "in the long grass," so to speak, but this is an individual who very clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second wind... The Reader's Digest story appeared in 1985; now have a page cite up for mention in Kuralt's book. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on now. It sits with 4 independent mainstream media news stories, all footnoted, statue, school, and beer named after him, Reader's Digest article dated, Kuralt book cited, with 3 in-links to the page established. Needs to have the title changed to "Nick Venetucci" as soon as AfD closes. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

===DELETE===Not worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia^{[according to whom?]}

Keep. The rancher has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loan modification in the United States

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

Reads more like an essay, sources are primary. Seems redundant to existing articles. If this is indeed a notable topic, it'd be better to start from scratch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Useful information? Yes. But content-wise and style-wise it's more like a government pamphlet than an encyclopedia article, especially given it's probably short-term relevance. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor quality is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely an inclusion-worthy topic. Article is flagged for lack of a lead and somebody needs to write one immediately. Certainly an article which can and should be improved, but that's not reason to haul this here for deletion. Not an unwikified and unsourced original essay, which is what we should be on guard for. Needs work but a reasonably good early effort at writing economic history with contemporary importance. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work. Tangurena (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tru: A XXX Parody

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM; article has no substantive content. Parody does not inherit the notability of its target.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know there's been comment about the parody, mostly as it seems that Anna Paquin got a laugh out of it. See here and here. Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is mentioned here as well... and since the growing genre of XXX Parody seems to receive coverage, why not include them all as a notable genre article, instead of seperate articles? Tru: A XXX Parody, 30 Rock: A XXX Parody, Friends A XXX Parody, Sex and the City: A XXX Parody, The Big Lebowski: A XXX Parody, and The Office: A XXX Parody, Octopussy 3D: A XXX Parody, Cheers A XXX Parody, The Golden Girls A XXX Parody, Seinfeld A XXX Parody, etc.[10] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While an article entitled something like Parody in American pornography might be doable, so to speak, this lame ad for an obscure film is not. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National School Meals Week

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

Seems to be written as an advert, nothing to establish notability - google search gives a few rehashed press releases. Random Time 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising copy lightly rewritten to wikipedia guidelines but still non-notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Miles Blues. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a cover article on the topic, no need for all the redlinks. Tone 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones

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

This is a very long list of mostly red-linked clones. It's unreferenced (likely ripped from a website), far too many red links, and contains too many mistakes. Action Gamemaster was never released, Entertainment Computer System is an Intellivision add-on, Nintoaster is a case mod, and "Super Joy Fun Stick Player Mech Game Player Game" is Benjamin Heckendorn's nickname for the Power Player Super Joy III. In short, a complete mess of an "article".

keep, but limit to bluelinked (and correctly bluelinked) entires only. Agree in current form it is a mess, but messes should be cleaned up, not deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether it can be cleaned up or not. The NOAC is a very very commonly available chip, and there's just way to many devices and systems out there using it to justify listing anything but the most notable, which even then the handful of which can simply be mentioned in prose in the Nintendo Entertainment System article. As such, I don't see enough notability to carry it's own article here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rational by Marty Golberg. Additionally this article has no sources (let alone, reliable significant ones) to cover it. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in a cut-down form, but not restricted to blue linked articles (Category:Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones serves that purpose) - NES clones are an important part of many countries' gaming history outside of Japan, North America and Western Europe, but many of them aren't individually notable or unique enough to warrant their own article (there are only so many different ways you can say "it plays Famicom games but it's shaped more like console X, oh and it has turbo buttons"). It shouldn't attempt to list every clone ever produced - there are thousands of them - but at least those that enjoyed some degree of popularity somewhere in the world. Sengokucannon (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amusingly I was going to suggest this be a category rather than an article. Turns out it's already a category. There's also a full length article on NES clones. If a clone doesn't deserve it's own article or even mention within the clones article, why does it need a whole other article to catalogue it? Not to mention this list isn't sourced and contains some...questionable entries. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments from OldManNeptune, MartyGoldberg and Teancum Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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