Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:02, 7 May 2010

< 6 May	8 May >

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fennell

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

I believe that this article is irrelevant and redundant as per applicability criteria as the subject of the article is quite simply not notable or appropriate enough to have his own article on Wikipedia.--Topclaw (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to me to meet all of the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, so I think the article should stay. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The numerous independent references and the fact that this individual has a major role on several nationally-broadcast television and radio programs belie any claims on lack of notability, as well as your "belief" of irrelevance. --Canley (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the references to be found are now in the article (thanks to Bilby (talk · contribs)), but I think it would be generous to describe their coverage as significant. However, as Canley (talk · contribs) says, Fennell has a major role on a number of nationally broadcast television and radio programs, which, combined with the references, is sufficient to establish notability. This is a solidly referenced stub about someone with national television exposure, there is certainly no good reason to delete it. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:55, 12 May 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. Origional research. We already have Silicone rubber, so there is no real reason to keep this article as it does not really warrant a seperate topic. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage and limitation of silicon rubber

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

Very strange composition, I'm not exactly sure what it is but it shouldn't be here. Just barely escaped a speedy tag. — e. ripley\^talk 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like an essay or original research. JIP | Talk 05:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the above, and it might actually have been copy pasted, who knows. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - ditto. I would have speedied it. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-nonsense, including such incomprehensible uses for rubber as "a large statue Buddha", "artificial fossils Factory", and "Europe component factory" whatever the heck that even is. The bulk of it seems to be copied from a machine-translated list used on various catalog websites, such as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unintelligible, some kind of a combination of a WP:OR essay and an advertisement. Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 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 merge to Dillsboro, Indiana. Mention can also be made in First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), provided that article survives its AfD Shimeru (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Dillsboro, Indiana)

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

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable - just an ordinary church, really. I fear the creator started the article after having seen First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), but that article ought to be deleted as well. StAnselm (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and now also nominated for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it should not - did you two not notice that one is listed on the NRHP? LadyofShalott 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; maybe in the future. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dillsboro, Indiana. This is commonly the best solution for local churches, primary schools and other local facilities that enjoy local notability only. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), the parent congregation (whose building is listed as an NRHP, and should not be deleted). LadyofShalott 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana). LadyofShalott 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The link with First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana) is explained in this article, so it would be a candidate for to be merged into, however churches etc are often mentioned in articles on settlements, so the suggestion to merge into Dillsboro, Indiana, is also a valid suggestion. The eventual outcome should probably be that the sourced material is moved into the settlement article, with a mention added to the article on First Presbyterian Church. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 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) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandale (film)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and Redirect~~ to article on director George Mihalka. The article lacks assertion of notability or sources showing any... and the common name makes searches difficult... but sources are out there... some in French... [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] So either this gets input perhaps from Canadian Wikipedians with an interest in older 'B' movies, or should get a merge and redirect to the director's article, as he has the notability the current article lacks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 7 May 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) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This low-budget movie actually attractde quite a lot of coverage in its time (working from memory). Working from Google , we have this entry in Guide to the cinema(s) of Canada. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] from the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette which Google news seems to have a good archive of. From my own recollection, the Toronto Star also covered the film during its development and subsequent release but they don't appear in any of the searches I executed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq... with my thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 19 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. Deleted as a copyvio --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton College Student Center

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

WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to college. Wow, it doesn't even exist yet? It might warrant a sentence in the school's article. tedder (talk) 17:39, 13 May 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) 00:09, 14 May 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. 23:15, 6 May 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Steak Off" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak Off as well.) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steak Off

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

Charitable event which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. No mention is made of the event in any of the supplied references which are all to primary sources or maps to locations involved with the event . Google news and web searches on the title or the title with Denver added brings up zero relevant hits. Sounds like a nice event for a good cause but it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Previously speedily deleted but recreated and expanded, bringing to AFD for wider opinion. RadioFan (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is one of the event's founders.--RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 7 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard sticks

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

Yet another drinking game. A brief look at the history isn't turning up a properly sourced version to revert to; google isn't turning up notability in the first several pages of hits, and gnews comes up blank. Gbooks and gscholar aren't any help, either. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this drinking game. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I'll obviously be trying this this weekend, when are we going to get a CSD category for things made up in a college dorm room, or at least, drinking games made up one weekend. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made-up game. This article belongs on Facebook, not here. Joal Beal (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The game exists, as you'd well know if you nerds ever left the house --User:l0de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.20.89 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.185.20.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Just because something exists doesn't automatically make it notable. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all drinking games are made up. This game is amazing and the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.242.93 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — 75.73.242.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment That is not a relevant argument. Have a look at WP:SCRABBLE. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 12 May 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 YMCA (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Men's Christian Association Building

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

Disambiguation page with no blue links, and no logical blue links to add. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One, there are a lot of YMCA buildings, and two, non-editors won't view this page anyway.--T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Criterion G6 covers orphaned disambig pages. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, this is a legitimate disambiguation page, among the wikipedia-notable places that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I put a "hangon" to stop the Speedy delete, i hope that is correct procedure and will stop that. I need a few minutes to clean it up to meet MOSDAB guidelines fully, MOS:DABRL in particular. Question: did i see indication that there was a previous AFD about this, with decision to Keep? Where is that AFD discussion, could someone please provide a link? I believe this should probably be SPEEDY KEEP, actually, but i would like to see the previous discussion. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles need to be created for this disambig page to be valid. Now to me any building listed on the NRHP gets a free pass at notability, so I don't think there would be any problem getting these articles kept, but until then, the disambig page is just useless. The reason I did not hesitate to tag it for speedy is that it's been sitting there with only redlinks for a year and a half. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When i created this article in September 2008 the standards were different, and tt wasn't later tagged by WikiProject NRHP on the Talk page as it should have been, so it missed my cleanup drive through 3,000 such disambiguation pages, completed recently. In particular it had not gotten the {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} tag which would have gotten my attention. If you come across any other NRHP ones, if you can remember to let me know, please do. Thank you, whoever did contact me at my Talk page. And, no, the disambiguation is not useless: it clarifies to editors that they should not create an article for one specific place at the general name, i.e. that disambiguating phrase it needed. And for readers and editors both it now points them to the NRHP list-articles with info about these specific places, and clarifies that a) there is no separate article under any other name for either of these (allowing them to stop looking under "YMCA Building" or other alternative names possible, and b) communicates accurately that the topic is wikipedia-notable and an article can be created. --doncram (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually, i am not surprised to find the larger stash of YMCA building disambiguation at YMCA (disambiguation), which covers places like "YMCA Building" and other variations already. This 2 item page should be merged and redirected to that. I've done other mergers of sets of disambiguation covering variations on Young Women's Christian Association, and on Elks Buildings, and so on, before. This is just one stray 2 item page that shoulda been swept into the consolidation, but wasn't. If you all will kindly close this AFD and remove the Speedy Delete and all this mess, i will implement that merger. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination was just wrong, it seems to me. Comment that there are no logical blue links to add is just wrong, anyhow. The well-defined procedure for considering validity of red-links on a disambiguation page is to click on the red-link, then click on "what links here". For the 2 items on this page, that leads to the NRHP list articles which define these two places, give addresses and coordinates and other context. I added those NRHP list articles now as appropriate supporting bluelinks. Also, there appears to be another one or two alternate bluelinks that could be added; the Albany one is also linked from Downtown Albany Historic District(?) or something like that. --doncram (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further question The deletion nom message cites "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6." Does that reflect any official policy/guideline anywhere, or is that made up for this specific case? Because, it conflicts with Disambiguation policy about valid red-links having supporting blue-links. It has been held in fairly recent discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation that it is okay to have in the English wikipedia, as it has been okay for some time in German wikipedia, disambiguation pages that have all primary red-links as long as they each have proper supporting bluelinks. So, if this is a quote from some policy/guideline somewhere, there is a conflict that needs to be cleared up. If this is just the deletion nominator's personal view, we should discuss and clear up that, too. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [YMCA (disambiguation)]. see comments below. i personally dont like the redlinks here, i find it not very useful, though of course the structures are mentioned in the blue linked articles, and apparently doncram points out this is allowed now (i accept that despite my bias). people will type "ymca building" or "young mens... building or "ymca and all should link to only one disambig for simplicity and ease of navigation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!, let's not have this debate yet again! doncram... why debate this here... this has all been done before. Don't write anything else until you've seen this link. I am amazed nobody has brought up, especially doncram. Last I was involved, there was an uneasy truce between the disambiguation project and the NRHP project regarding exactly these kinds of edits (I had no idea that CSD tag existed actually). If that issue needs re-opened I'd suggest it's done at WP:Disambiguation rather than the project page. In the meantime, this AfD should probably be put on hold (closed with no prejudice) until the broader discussion is finished.
But whatever happens, please do not replay this debate on this AfD. It is too multifaceted for this forum and has already been done at least 2 other times that I know of. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the debate here needs to be closed somehow. Mercurywoodrose above, Boleyn2 below, and i so far agree that the AFD should be closed. And no one would object to redirecting the page to the bigger, combo dab about YMCA buildings. There are other issues in the discussion on NRHP dab pages which don't need to be addressed here, yes. Anyone is welcome to join and discuss there, yes, but this current AFD does need to be finished in some way. --doncram (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect to YMCA (disambiguation).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Shadowjams, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment any further debate should occur in another forum. i checked the aforementioned link to the NRHP debate. my librarianish brain is buzzing, too much to think about right now, interesting comments from many well intentioned and cogent editors. Im now absolutely ok with suspending this AFD OR keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this The deletion nominator Fabrictramp agrees that redirect is fine. I as creator/developer am fine with redirect to the larger, merged dab page for notable YMCA buildings. Everyone is fine with that. Please someone just close this now (as Keep / Redirect). I already put the entries from this dab page into the bigger one. All that is left is to redirect this one to it. --doncram (talk) 01:27, 12 May 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) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GERMAN-PITT (dog)(german shepard pittbull

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

Initially tagged as a speedy G3, this article no longer bears the signs of vandalism even though it essentially hasn't changed. Non-recognized dog breed, no reliable sources available, and, even if such dogs do exist, Wikipedia isn't in the business of coining names for new dog breeds. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. BTW there are about 150 dog breeds. Should we have articles on every cross? What's 150 x 149? Borock (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who removed the G3 tag, I thought that I could remove the vandalistic properties. If no sources can be found, then Delete. Ham tech person 17:28, 7 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Several Journeys of Reemus

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

All I can find on Google about this game are places online where you can play it (even the references in the article point to such sites). I can't really find any coverage about it. (The article also violates WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game series has received several annual award nominations, from The Mochi Awards at the Flash Gaming Summit, jayisgames.com and newgrounds.com. I'll add these to the article. I agree that each chapter's synopsis isn't necessary. User talk:SteveCastro —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Unless I'm mistaken, the Mochi Awards appear to be an online-only award event that doesn't pass WP:WEB. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mochi Awards are physically presented at the Flash Gaming Summit, a live conference in San Francisco, CA. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.136.124 (talk • contribs)
    - I stand corrected. However, the Flash Gaming Summit doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game was discussed during a panel at Casual Connect Seattle, a conference for casual game developers. The mention was covered by Gamasutra. This reference along with Channel4 and Joystiq reviews were added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCastro (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are four articles on Jay is Games, a snippet on Joystiq as well as this on Gamezebo which has some use. Although I'm very happy about the Jay sources it's got to be a weak keep because there are no significant sources from anywhere else. Someone another 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 7 May 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Gin

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

A contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. This is unreferenced step-by-step instructions on how to fix the drink. Needs not only reliable sources but some context to justify why the drink is a topic for its own article in an encyclopedia. Xtzou (Talk) 18:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator. Xtzou (Talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep add a single source and I'd vote to keep. To call this an instruction manual is to call any wiki article that mentions the ingredients a how to manual. (note: look up pepsi, is it a how to manual?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs)
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 1 May 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) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get it on wikiHow. Delete. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. The only evidence that this exists is a facebook page. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Mixing booze and Red Bull is not an original idea so it may be that such a drink may exist but be called something else and it may be notable under that name. This would make Super Gin an unsourced protologism and it would still need to be deleted for that reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 7 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Vitali

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

Was tagged as a speedy. I am undecided and am listing here procedurally. This article appears reasonably well written, and while notability is doubtful, this isn't a BLP and so somewhat more inclusive standards should IMO apply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 May 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) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some additional standards for the nature of the sourcing that apply to BLPs, but the same notability standards apply to BLP as all articles. This one sounds likely, but either someone must describe the nature of the source being relied on, or some additional sources must be found DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are many possible sources online. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 11 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Ridding

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

Although he appears to be an interesting character, he does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Although he would meet the general criteria of being "...interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention...", I think he fails the more specific criteria, in that there is not significant published coverage of him - I don't think we can rely on just one news article or that he was included in a wider sociological exhibition. If there was an article of Sydney eccentrics or an article on the exhibition in which Ridding featured, I would propose a merge, but in the circumstances I propose that the article is deleted Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, interesting, but that one article from the SMH is the only thing that I could find that's reliable and offers some coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Merge Could it be rewritten and merged into the Glebe, New South Wales notable residents section? He was a resident and contributed to the community in a notable way over a long period of time. The reference in The Sydney Morning Herald establishes that.--Savonneux (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 May 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) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count 3 reliable sources which discuss him, at least fairly in depth.Borock (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See here, he ran as an Independent candidate in the 1988 NSW state election. Charity work & other biographical details are given by: State Library of New South Wales. Historical evidence also presented in photographs at same site [15], [16]. According to my reading of WP:ANYBIO #2 he's notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The strength of coverage seems to be just above the level required for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Confessional (album)

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

This is a mixtape: WP:NALBUMS not met Lionelt (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 1 May 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) 00:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep released on Aftermath Records; "mixtape" is a bugbear word (like "blog") that disconcerts Wikipedians, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a full-length release on a noted label. Chubbles (talk) 21:29, 12 May 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Property Brokers

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

Non notable company - makes one claim to sponsoring an award but no evidence to substantiate this. Nothing in google to establish notability noq (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 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) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real showing of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 7 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Harrison

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

Appears to be non-notable. No third-party sources, google search does not reveal any coverage in reliable sources either. Pantherskin (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled 'Jeff Harrison poet', nothing much came back. He's a poet, its not difficult to call yourself a poet, persuading others is the hard part. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Silliman has written about this poet.

http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2004/04/readers-of-this-blog-will-know-by-now.html

Andrew Gallix has mentioned him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jul/01/spampoetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazantsev (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew D. Hoffman, Perry R. Cook, and David M. Blei of Princeton University have mentioned Jeff Harrison's poems in their paper "Data-Driven Recomposition Using The Hierarchical Dirichlet Process Hidden Markov Model".

http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/publications/hdphmm_icmc2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazantsev (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 May 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) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP Subject lacks in-depth coverage. A few mentions of his work don't qualify him per WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage provided doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if more coverage turns up. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:35, 15 May 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. While the article is short on independent sources, there is a near unanimous consensus that (1) the subject meets WP:PROF because of the subject's academic position; (2) the position is verifiable; and (3) that is sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Singh

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

Unsourced BLP; he may be notable, but you can't prove it from these "sources"; fails WP:V. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is true that he is a distinguished professor at National Law Institute University, and if that university counts as a "major institution of higher education and research," then he passes WP:PROF #5. Someone knowledgeable with academia in India should weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See preliminary expert commentary at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#notable.3F. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 1 May 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) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The institute seems from our web page to be a highly important law schools, and ref.1 in the article documents that he is a distinguished professor there. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iqbal Singh's profile appears on the NLIU homepage, also some of his other publications appear in other searches across wikipedia under 'Iqbal Singh', for instance 'Punjab under siege' Sirvivan 10 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivian2009 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It needs more sources, but he appears to meet WP:PROFESSOR. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think being distinguished professor at one of India's top three law schools should be enough, and it's easily verifiable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 12 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Struecker

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

This individual seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT and does not seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. This seems similar to several other recent AfDs (here, here, here, and here) of individuals whose article's failed ONEEVENT for the same event. The editor who removed the prod on this article claimed the individual is notable for the three books he wrote, but they don't appear to be covered enough to get him over WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My limited research leads me to think that this person is notable. He was not merely involved in the Battle of Mogadishu, but he co-authored several books (only partly about that experience) that have been widely reviewed, he has been interviewed about the Battle fairly extensively (Christian Broadcasting Network, Philadelphia Inquirer, CNN), and I find that he was prominently featured in the book Black Hawk Down.[17] Yes, he first became known for that one event, but he has remained in the public eye. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 30 April 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) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be generally notable, sources look good enough. Borock (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per precedent cited (subjects who were more heavily involved in the battle have already been deleted, e.g. Eversmann, who also wrote a book and received more coverage in both the movie and other books). Policy-wise it fails WP:MILPEOPLE in my opinion and is a BLP issue. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:MILPEOPLE, but his authorship may be notable if that section was expanded. Canals86966 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Author of several books that have been 3rd party reviewed. Person is notable per guidelines so keep the article. Kugao (talk) 17:30, 12 May 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbooked

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

I can't find any evidence that this is a known business model. (Or that Expedia's business model is described anywhere as "unbooked".) Indeed, the article's author describes it in an edit summary as an "emergent business model", but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it to emerge. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_____________

I have created a talk page to address this, opening with:

"There is a view that this entry is to be deleted. I think that there is wide usage of this term in publishing, accounting practice and a variety of business models. While I am but one author, I would like to see this entry remain providing the opportunity for other authors to continue to expand this entry with greater context, relevance and utility to the community."

Jeffdusting 09:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The new information that has been put in the article about the Unbook Movement has to with "book" as a printed medium, but the rest of the article has to do with "booking" as in "making reservations". It's not clear what the article is really referring to. ... discospinster _talk 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure if WP:DICTIONARY, WP:SPAM, or WP:NEO fits better. Jminthorne (talk) 08:06, 4 May 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) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incoherent. Apparently about two different subjects, neither of them with any sources or likely notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with DGG. Also non-notable neologisms, dictionary definitions, and original research musing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 7 May 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) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Foust

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

A lot of information here but none of it really seems to meet any of the notability criteria. Most of the references given do not mention his name at all. Google search is mostly a list of social network sites. Some of the claims are dubious -- for example, Healing Hands World Outreach supposedly makes $150 million annually, but Google has never heard of it. ... discospinster _talk 03:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 May 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) 00:48, 7 May 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) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is rather obvious vanity piece, perhaps written by himself or one of his followers.Pcap ping 08:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that is both notable and verifiable by reliable sources. Some things seem downright bogus. For example, Sport Karate Magazine just published issue 100, yet the article references issue 576. A search for "prophetic records" foust -faust produced only the wikipedia page. None of the references given show notability of the subject--some don't even mention him. For all the schools listed, there's no indication he actually graduated from any of them--it appears that after 12 years of post-secondary education he's still attending community colleges. This appears to be a vanity page created by an SPA with a COI. Papaursa (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the subject's notability as a martial artist. Janggeom (talk) 06:06, 16 May 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) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Stone

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 May 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) 00:48, 7 May 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) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 14 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Talwar

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

Nothing in the article indicates that the subject is particularly notable per WP:BIO. He is the CEO of a company and spoke at forums. First five pages of a Google search comes up with Facebook and LinkedIn entries, some articles about a restaurateur in Delhi (I don't think it's the same guy), a DJ (ditto), and I found one "Snapshot" of the company on Businessweek. Nothing in Google news. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First page of google search returned this - [18]. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 1 May 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) 00:47, 7 May 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) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No solid information has been found despite this AFD being open for a long time. The article Szzuk found seems to be a title but no article. tedder (talk) 06:58, 20 May 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) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban environment simulation

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

Does not seem to be an article as such, but rather a thesis/essay/synthesis of reference material. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unreadable text apparently about traffic simulation studies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 7 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EleMints

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

Questionable notability; only contributor is the actual developer. No reliable refs, either. moɳo 01:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [19], [20], [21], [22] Doing a Google search came up with a few app reviews as well as a Businessweek article. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:55, 6 May 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) 00:35, 7 May 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 merge to Rod Espinosa. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neotopia

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

I can't find significant coverage for this comic series. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Just a quick search for sources, are these acceptable?: - here, here and here. If anything though I might suggest a merge to the authors page Rod Espinosa, due to the somewhat trivial mentions of this comic in the sources. Problem is, that page is also up for deletion nomination... Jwoodger (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 May 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) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, since the author's page is definitely being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 7 May 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Welsh Male Voice Choir

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

I can't find significant coverage for this choir. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 May 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) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only coverage in Google News is trivial. No other evidence of in-depth reliable sources on the topic. cab (talk) 07:18, 7 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They Walk in the Night

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

No evidence of notability. — e. ripley\^talk 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This collection of stories seems to be mentioned quite a bit in this Google book search. At the very least, this should be a merge to Eric Rosenthal (historian and author). -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 3 May 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) 00:29, 7 May 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Aquino Yap}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Fisch}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hit Singles by American Idol Contestants}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Okon}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Iris}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Hansen}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Valerio}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PresSTORE}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money (Michael Jackson song)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Borzillo}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of verified oldest military veterans}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Daniels}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zzzyx}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc_Fennell}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advantage and limitation of silicon rubber}}