Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:24, 2 April 2011

< 1 April	3 April >

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 Userfy to User:The Land/The Land (fiction) leaving redirect going to The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever . The Land (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Land (fiction)

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

A lengthy article but one presented entirely from an in-universe perspective, with no sources cited. Any critical analysis of this fantasy setting which does in fact exist can certainly be accomodated at The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever. The Land (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to leave discussions about the main issues to others, but if the current article is not worth keeping, then surely this should be redirect rather than delete. PWilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be wise. Actually, I'd userfy the content as well - probably by moving the article into a subpage of my user space, and then change the redirect to point to an appropriate article. Then if anyone wants to take the in-universe material and put it on a fansite or wikia page or something then they can. It's actually very thorough, it just doesn't belong here.... The Land (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punch Trunk

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

Delete Article makes no indication why this individual episode is notable. Currently consists of plot details and castings. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an "episode," but a theatrically released animated short. Given the number of films in the series which had Oscar nominations, other distinctions, etc, and the array of print sources which can be used to establish reputation/reception, as well as the regular involvement of notable voice actors, I see no reason to poke holes in a relatively comprehensive filmography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should contain those. As it stands, this is unsourced and makes no assertion of notability. The fact that others in the Merry Melodies series have oscar nominations in no way contributes to the notability of this particular short. Nor does involving the regular crew of voice actors which are themselves notable; that is licence for every Loonie Toons short EVER to be considered notable solely on the voice actors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This short, and every Looney Tunes short to 1988, is covered in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons by Jerry Beck and Will Friedwald (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1989, p. 256).SPNic (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight Project (album)

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

The band itself is not notable. No secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for picking out this specific EP from their page and not the other two that have their own pages then? I just thought I'd help the fans that might look at this. If you want to erase one, erase them all. dragula_85 | Talk | 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into band's main page, as not notable enough to warrant it's own page. As for the other albums, They don't seem to have much notability either, and the references (Amazon, Twitter) do not denote notability. As such, I would recommend the same for them. If there are more proofs of notability, I would suggest finding more refs while this is in process. However, I feel deletion would be a step too far, as there is clearly some work put in, and with a bit more, this could be worth reading. Bennydigital (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This album plainly fails the requirements listed at WP:NALBUM. There is a total dearth of reliable, third-party coverage of the record. Frankly, I toyed with the idea of nominating the band's article for deletion as well but... a very quick Google search and GNews search suggests that sufficient coverage probably exists out there, and I don't want to overstep. But this album does not have the benefit of that type of coverage, as far as I can tell. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication how this would pass WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riviera

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Not notable as an actor, reality television personality, or sports entertainer. Nikki♥311 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted back in 2009 for being non-notable and after having a quick look for sources I would say that is still the case. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines; that is, unless your name is Jethro Bodine and you hail from Bugtussle--Hokeman (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER per professional wrestler, actor... He survives the notability requirements.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs a re-write not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What this article needs are reliable sources. Unfortunately, the subject lacks GHits and GNEWs of substance to support notability via WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER or any other notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two full pages of Google News hits give some evidence of notability. While the source quality is not exactly Washington Post or New York Times, there are 21 hits. One source I looked at was just a passing mention, but the second and third I picked at random: Hot Indie News and News Blaze, are indepth. Anarchangel (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the quality of the sources is not the highest and most are just passing mentions or press releases. Of two you specifically mentioned, one is a PR generated by ECLECTIC MEDIA PRODUCTIONS and even mentions the media company in the release. The other sure is written as a PR, not a news article. ttonyb (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like he lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to prove notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - lack of notability, sourcing, etc. The Usual Caveats apply, however - the subject could easily become notable at some point. I would recommend that this go to DRV before recreating (again). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The 2 sources mentioned by Anarchangel appear to be supersources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you cite, from newsblaze.com, appears to be a verbatim copy of a press release, including the advert for the PR company at the end. Not sure about the other one, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems painfully clear to me that the two "sources" identified are press releases, they use the standard press release format, e.g. the closing paragraphs. Not a single reliable source providing in-depth coverage has been presented, nor have I found any in my own searches, GNG is not met. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of third-party reliable sources. http://www.hotindienews.com/2009/07/14/105107 reads like a press release. A sample:
For a sneak preview at the show: http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1613969&vid=405979
For more information about “Megan Wants a Millionaire,” you can visit the show’s official website.
http://www.vh1.com/shows/megan_wants_a_millionaire/series.jhtml
http://www.hotindienews.com/contact states:
We always accept electronic press releases and physical submissions to help indies increase their world-wide exposure. So, please feel free to send your CDs, DVDs, and Press Kits to the address listed below for consideration on our site.
The second source mentioned by Anarchangel (talk · contribs), http://newsblaze.com/story/20100227105953zzzz.nb/topstory.html, is also a press release. The article is published by Eclectic Media, which the article touts as the "24/7 full service PR Company that is effective".
This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chandra Patra

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

Non-notable person, there have some non-verifiable reference. Not as per WP:BIO.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the fellow is a retired IAS officer who has been Deputy Collector of a former princedom in India (merged since Union) and has done a considerable amount of social service in the region, the field of education is mentioned. He continues in work for upliftment of the poor and has received recent media coverage. Although article is poorly laid out and needs improvement, in his local area, he is a respected notable.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: has received recent media coverage. Where??- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the answer to that question was pretty obvious, i.e. in the sources cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlexTracer

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

Very specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty of adding an AFD notice to the talk page of the creator and primary contributor User:Pdmitry. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this software article lacks 3rd party references needed to establish notability. Created by SPA so possibly advert. Dialectric (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete' one gnews hit says it all [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (Korean Novel)

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

This article, while mentioning that the book received an award, does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) since the literary award is not claimed to be major; indeed, it is not stated what the award even is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this list of winners of the Dong In Prize, including the work in question, although that does not answer the question of what that prize is. LadyofShalott 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, According to Kim Dong-in, "In 1955, the magazine World of Thoughts (Sasanggye) created the Dong-in Literature Prize to commemorate Kim's literary achievements[14]."

Dong-in Moonhak Sang is Mangerment by Chosun llbo. and, you could see that : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/30/2010053001295.html --Winbbs (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate tells me that page says, "Services are very sorry for the inconvenience. The page you requested has been misspelled or the address of an address change, or delete pages, due to Is unavailable. The requested page address, please check again. If you continue to have the same problem Customer Center , please contact us. Thank you." In other words, the page doesn't seem to say what you thought it should. Can you check the link? LadyofShalott 02:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sole issue at hand here is notability, I should mention that there is now a Wikipedia page for the Dong-in Literary Award, which is relatively major, and this book is now linked from that page. I've also cleaned up a bit of grammar, but that seems incidental? Ccmontgom (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Dong-in Literary Award is a major award in Korea, so this book clears the notability guidelines. Francis Bond (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- After checking inside Wikipedia and outside, as far as I can tell, this was not 'a major award in Korea', it was the only literary award in Korea from 1956 until 1977 (the establishment of the Yi Sang Literary Award. The article definitely needs work though, so I've started the hunt for my Korean/English dictionary, and will see what I can add from its ko. article. If the article is kept, I will work on it further. Dru of Id (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to keeping this article now that notability has been established. However, I would like to see sources added to the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Urquhart

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable journalist. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means he fails every part of WP:BIO, unless someone can find something I missed. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this journalist .... --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bull Years

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

Notability ; appears to fail WP:NBOOK; only outside press I could find was on CNYradio.com, mentioning its existence. Nat Gertler (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant treatment in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:BK. Deor (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Camilleri

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

Non notable author, two out of three refs not giving any info regarding subject, no indication of notability, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only significant coverage is this book review in a Gozo paper where he apparently is originally from. The only other coverage I can find is this very short bit in the Times of Malta. That is insufficient to demonstrate notability in general, nor does it establish him as a notable author. The book is self-published through Authorhouse which may explain why there is very little in the way of critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Camilleri's page must not be deleted! He's one of the best author's around!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta64 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related to but distinct from the AfD notability question, the article text is basically the same as the referenced (but unsigned) article from GozoNews, with the same detailed description of which classes he took at school. So there is a WP:COPYVIO issue. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Green Capital

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Only one source found which has made a significant mention of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article has no references beyonf a link to the organistion's web site. A search for coverage finds this article,and some coverage in the NY Times where it is not the primary subject but the coverage is more than a passing mention. However, that taken in total is insufficient to establish this organisation as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per soundly-motivated nomination. lobby groups in Washington DC are a dime a dozen. No indication of how they are notable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marieta Besu

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

Neither delivering an interview to one's local paper nor having one's paintings exposed in one's city of residence (what the references indicate) is substantive evidence of notability. I can't see any of the WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST criteria being met. And indeed, none of the long list of achievements seems to merit inclusion, but before someone says one of them does, I'd like to note they too are unreferenced, so we have no evidence that she can actually lay claim to all but three of these (the footnoted ones). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under any guidelines, personal CV. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I trimmed down all the cv-like cruft from the article so I could see what was actually there. There does seem to be a little coverage of her in reliable media, but most of it is announcements of exhibitions in her local newspaper. I'm having a hard time justifying the broader coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. And while she claims some major art show and museum exposure, again there doesn't seem to be much coverage of it that we could use as the basis of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. O'Malley

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

Author who does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A few incidental book reviews in local newspapers and a plethora articles written by him, but there is no significant coverage about his works or his life in multiple WP:RS; the only actual non-trivial, non-primary sources appear to be his obituary and one article about his role in and expulsion from the AP Bureau in Moscow (which itself is not mentioned in the article). Per the article's talk page, there is a claim that he has some sort of importance in Butte, but no sourcing can be found to corroborate that assertion. Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is local, and of the two books, one appears self-published. The one book has been reviewed on a couple of sites, but beyond that I couldn't find much. Seaphoto^Talk 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this seems to indicate the creator does not understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a memorial. I see no evidence that this person is known outside of this home town of Butte, Montana (pop 33,892) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs and Its Existence

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

Confusing and essay-like. May be a school project. Information from this article may (and probably should) be included in articles such as the main article on dinosaurs. elektrik SHOOS 06:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikiversity and Delete from wikipedia Yes, this does look like someone's school project for making a page at wikipedia. Not bad, but this is not the appropriate place for it. If the author is reading this, he can simply copy/paste the text of his article in http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_and_Its_Existence --Enric Naval (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy it for them? Just noticed - brand-new user, too. Seriously bitey just to delete it :o( Maybe someone could mentor them through using the text to improve existing article(s). Pesky (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Userspace and/or Wikiversity/Simple Wikipedia and inform author. Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, but a bit too basic for a Wikipedia article.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Are dinosaurs real? This question perhaps clouded the minds of some people. Because although there were a lot of evidences presented still they are lacking and debatable. How dinosaurs live, reproduce and die is the scope of this research. Our group chose this topic because it is interesting and exciting. Reading books and surfing the net about these creatures are like going back into their time. You might want to change the title before handing this in to your teachers. I'd suggest The Existence of Dinosaurs or Did Dinosaurs Exist? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move elsewhere. Laudable try but not yet up to Wikipedia standards. Don't give up though. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The nominator got it right. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay/original research. I disagree with comments above; I think these kids SHOULD "give up" from trying to post their school research paper on Wikipedia. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Seagull (theatre)

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

I object to the proposed speedy deletion of The Seagull (theatre), so have altered to AfD as it seems a reasonable article apart from lack of references and categories; both fixable. So I do not agree with deletion, but have put it up for discussion. I notice that there have been a lot of edits to the article!! Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS: the log entry seems to be wrong Hugo999 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An earlier version of the article contained a number of additional sources, subsequently deleted, that establish the notability of this theatre in its community[2] and Google has more sources[3][4] such as [5].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - looks like edits which started to remove sources weren't caught in January, leading to all sorts of issues. I'm certain sources can be found to show notability, certainly from regional media if nothing else. I'll try and have a go this afternoon - I'd say a dial back to 1009 might be a good starting point. I'll also add it to my watchlist... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Artical Being Improved

This artical could be deleted but it can be improved. So i will do somethings to improve it. As can be done according to Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Please do not change my improvements to this artical as it can help prevent it from bing deleted. Darkcover21 (talk) 2:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Personally, I think that any theatre that regularly receives fully professional productions should be automatically notable. But beside from that, even if you disregard the coverage associated with AbI Titmuss, there's now more than enough sources to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, forget that, Speedy Keep. Given that the CSD tag was placed by Darkcover, who doesn't actually seem to be in favour in deletion, and the AfD was only created to discuss the deletion without the proposer being in favour, and reasonable steps have been taken to address notability, advertising and copyright, I don't think there is actually any case for deletion at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable, the article could do with cleanup, is certainly about a notable subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H. W. Tatum

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 04:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added. I can't and don't argue that he rises to WP:CREATIVE, but I also can't ignore the amount of coverage that the one statue of Selena has received, not all of which I've included. Color my rationale how you will (a spin on GNG, or just IAR), but this feels notable enough to me. I've teased some of the text out of Google snippets from the Kelso book, which makes it appear that the book has a small section on the statue (2 pages?), but I haven't gotten all of it. (A completely sensible alternative might be to merge to the article on the monument the statue is in.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the quantity and quality of sources allow him to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn NW (Talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth E. Carter

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

I don't believe that the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE (the most applicable criterion is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 04:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominated for two Oscars, winner of a career achievement award from the American Black Film Festival [6][7], clearly passes WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced article about a notable costume designer with 2 Oscar nominations, a significant award, and a quarter century career in Hollywood. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Two Oscar nominations clearly satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing

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

An excessively detailed and badly sourced article on a single research project of unclear significance. The two main papers by J. Davis on this research have, respectively, 10 and 8 citations in Google scholar (discounting the many papers listed by GS that predate these two), quite low numbers for this area, and the papers that cite it do not seem to be surveys of a type that we could use as an appropriate secondary source. (Note that what appears to be a relevant source, a paper from a group at U. Texas entitled "The FAST methodology for high-speed SoC/computer simulation", is actually about a completely different project with a similar name and only happens to cite this project incidentally and trivially.) This article was deleted by an AfD in 2007, the deletion decision was upheld in a DRV, and three months later it was created again, still inadequately sourced. The original deletion nomination also observed that excessive amounts of text were copied from copyrighted sources; I haven't checked carefully whether that's still true, but given the way it's worded it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. An alternative to deletion would be to stub this down to something that can be documented entirely from secondary sources, but I haven't found any secondary sources that would be usable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Indeed, much of this article appear to be copied from Davis' Ph.D. thesis. For instance, all but the first three words of the lede paragraph are from page v of the thesis, the next section "Project Overview" is a lightly edited copy of figures and text from pages 16–18 of the thesis, and the next section after that "Architecture Overview" is a lightly edited copy of figures and text from pages 31–33 of the thesis. Given that I suspect the copyright owner (Davis) to be the same person who added this text here, it may not be a speedily deletable copyright violation, but I think it is still problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To err on the safe side I would speedy delete as copyvio. Just because the same man wrote the two doesn't mean that his thesis, if published, won't become property of the publishing journal and thus create a potential problem. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a univeristy research project, it's place is in a scientific journal not an encyclopedia, it has no real world usage or acceptance and probably never will. It is inevitable that the author of this page is part of the university research team, I can't guess at the reason it is placed here, but as a research scientist myself I couldn't imagine putting years of my work into a public domain article - unless the project has no real world value and it is little more than an advert for the author. I will assume it is a good faith bad idea, that doesnt' make it a speedy, but it is an obvious delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keys

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

Prodded; I contested it. Turfing the matter to AFD—concerns that the actor may not meet WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most noted role (in Big Time Rush) was only bordering on significant (he's not listed under "Major characters") and little other evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", with what appear to be one-off parts as tangential (at best) characters in other shows. I think WP:NACTOR is the relevant guideline here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete; article appears to be sourced from every bit actor participating in Big Time Rush. Agreed, Doorman, Usher, Guard, extra roles like this do not meet notability for Actors. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie X

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC, contested prod Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has not been established. Although many sources have been posted, unfortunately none satisfy WP:GNG. I guess that makes it delete.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NMUSIC. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this musician. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Companyia Elèctrica Dharma

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

Extremely promotional article that got declined for A7; I didn't see the claim as even remotely plausible, and still think it's bollocks, so here it is at AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite from the neutral point of view. I see significant coverage in Google News and Google Books, and there are articles in the Catalan Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. The article needs attention from a neutral editor fluent in Catalan. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt there's sourcing, but I couldn't find anything particularly reliable; then again, I don't speak Catalan. If decent sources can be found, I'll withdraw this. However, also beware of Wikipedias in other languages; their existence there doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Aside from WP:NPOV, the band does return a fair amount of news, but most are passing mentions of their participation at an event. A couple of news are about the band, but are mostly from regional newspapers. From a search you get mostly music download services and some blogs. I think the source that's already included from the Government of Catalonia is reliable and independent, but in the end it doesn't feel like they have much presence outside of Catalonia, or Spain at most. While inclusion on the other Wikipedias might be reasonable, I don't think that it reaches as far as to this one. - patitomr (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, change since there's no opposition to inclusion - patitomr - frankie^MR (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Author (Joel També):

Why I think the article should be kept:

Well, this band, uses to record in Memphis sound studio (USA)

They have toured USA, South Africa and all of Europe many times.

They have a Record Label that edit's all their albums from Brazil. I gess many Brazilians, might speak English but ignore Spanish and Catalan.

About what you call "Extremelly promotional article". Well, yesterday I got advice to explain why they are as important as to be in Wikipedia. That's why I changed and added to headline their most important contributions.

I am not from the band. I am just a lover of its work. And I discovered to my concern that there where no articles in other languages about this important band from my country - that I think is a real contribution to world music and Rock dialogue. They are really unique and interesting. They bring something really new and special.

I also really love the possibility to work on-line and keep posting change after change, so we can see how the article grows up. And have the feelling of building up - I really like this from wikis. I think, perhaps if I would have first written the article and post it all together, perhaps there would have been no problem at all. I am also completing an invesntigation process since I am writting, to put more things clear, precise and adjusted to the date, sources through refferences. Since for example, I know they did more Tours in Europe, as to Germany, France - I have to investigate if UK also. But all will come soon.

If you could just give me a couple more of weeks I would thank you. I also will contact the band members towards some certain questions.

I also would like to add multimedia, photos, perhaps some video. This band has celebrated to the date, 20 years concert, 30 and 35 anniversary gigs, wich where attended by more than 20.000 people each. And got collaborations from all the important artists from my country playing with them on stage.

Perhaps Companyia Elèctrica Dharma hasn't had the international eclossion that it deserves, thus I write this article to help contributing in it since it's sound I think has an important meaning to the Culture of the Planet. It represents the voice of my nation, more than 10.000.000 people spread between Andorra, France, Italy and Spanish areas - such as Balear Islands or the Autonomous Communities of Valencia and Catalonia in the former present political map of Europe.

If need, you can, if you want, check and meet me in such a social net as facebook and I gess you'll see I have nothing to see with the band, nor the record company or any interest towards them that my appreciation for their art. - There I am "Joel Molt Bé" and you can see them as "Companyia Elèctrica Dharma".

Hope this data will be definetly useful. Also with the help of my new improving of the article to come yet soon.

- Thanks for your interest and attention.

- I don't get to the point that I have to be here blaming you for adding an article to this international contributed wikipedia. Don't see the point of this arguments. You make me feel somehow like living it up. This seems a bit nonsense. All this agressivity and the use of words as "bollocks" by Blade.

Nottice it's just contribution to knowledge and world's culture. I quit using wikipedia due to this obsessive prossecutive attitude. But I did never got insulted. Do you really nottice what are you really arguing about? I AM JUST A USER THAT WANTS TO HELP, AT THE END, INCLUDING AN INNOCENT ARTICLE.

Joel Soriano i Botines - my real complete name IT'S TO HELP YOU SEE I WILL NEVER APPEAR IN ANY OF THEIR ARTICLES, just to show you I have nothing to see with the band.

I don't know what's this (down here) reading I don't try to pretend to be another person. I just give you my real name. I introduced myself in the top of this speech as "The Author Joel També" wich is my wikipedia id.

Joel Soriano i Botines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel També (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come across as rude or try to discount your opinion; I sometimes forget that not everyone is used to the terminology here on Wikipedia. Please have a look at what constitutes a reliable source, and see if you can add something like that. If you can add a few reliable sources, this article will probably be kept. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment patitomr's argument to delete is actually more effective as an argument to keep. If this band is notable in Catalonia, and also throughout Spain, as patitomr seems to acknowledge, then the band is notable enough for an article on the English Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia of the entire world, not the Wikipedia of just the English language speaking world. Articles about topics best known in non-English speaking areas of the world are entirely appropriate here, as long as they are notable, and it is not necessary that reliable sources be in English. It is just that those sources are preferable if available. However, if the only sources are in Catalan or Spanish, then that is perfectly OK. Notability is the key here, so Joel També's arguments about how much he likes the band, and how important he personally thinks it is, should be given no weight in this debate. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, for the information I've found, I do think they are notable in the region. I will change to keep if there's agreement that this can be included in the English Wikipedia. The article still needs to be rewritten of course. As for sources, i found this mention in a book, perhaps someone more experienced could take a look to see if it suffices. As for the news, this and this mention the band in particular, the first one being about an homage to the band's trajectory. - patitomr (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Article could do with some work, and the evidence presented above seems reasonable borderline, but I believe it is just sufficient for inclusion.~~ I did not notice this source. The group definitely appears notable. doomgaze (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell that article has something to do with Miles Davis; would you mind just briefly summing up what it says? I can't read it myself, and Google translate mangled it pretty badly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is La Companyia Elèctrica Dharma fusions songs of American jazz composer Miles Davis and of Catalan Joaquim Serra --whose birth centenary was celebrated last year--, two of the biggest influences of the group from Sants, in their new work, entitled "El misteri d"en Miles Serra i les músiques mutants" (Picap), thay they will present next saturday at L"Auditori de Barcelona. The rest of the article talks about their motivations while making the album, and the lasts two paragraphs talk about their reincorporation with Picap, with whom they had edited 11 albums in the past, and about their opinion about a musician called Guillamino who aparently performs with a certain ensemble formation different than Dharma's. It's definitely a newspaper piece, almost an interview, and not a press release by any means. - patitomr (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd be glad to produce the full translation if you want it - patitomr (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Notable by non-English news sources, which are many. Agree with Cullen328 on most points.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0.1 Organic Vodka

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

Non notable, failing WP:GNG and verging on a CSD candidate for advertisement. Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable, nothing of value would be lost. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Lacks sources, reliable or otherwise. Nothing turned up in Gbooks, Gnews or Gscholar searches. Standard search turns up mirrors, blogs and social media mentions. Appears to be written solely to promote the product, thus violating one of the things Wikipedia is not. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual war memorial

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

First sentence is a dictionary type definition, the rest is a mention of a non-notable memorial, fails WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified; pretty much nonsense. First it gives a definition for "perpetual war memorial", but none of the sources support the definition. Then it says without attribution that the Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial in Irvine is the first perpetual war memorial in the world - even though that memorial does not use the term. Google finds nothing to support the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MajorVariola (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Apologies for being a newbie to the WP maintenance culture.[reply]

Re: references, have added. This was meant as an informational page to those seeking definition of the phrase, with pointers to other supporing articles including Pertual War (aka Long War) and war memorials. These are, by the way, widely accepted and well defined terms. But, I've put refs there so the article is more self contained. Thanks for the feedback.

The facts of the Irvine installation are referenced in multiple newspapers etc. There are more refs under its article.

Re: deleting the tags at top, sorry, didn't know the rules or lingo.

Re: notability: the first of a new variant of a class is notable by virtue of introducing that variant to the world. The "first X with Y" is the schema. The first book made with movable type, the first color movie, that kind of thing.

Re: MelanieN: the Irvine war memorial page explicitly contains a quote from a founder, ref to city documents, and several newspaper stories that describe the installation exactly as this page does. As far as "dictionary" definition goes, the phrase "pertual war memorial" defines a distinct category separate from any combination of those words, so the phrase is meaningful, much like "civil war memorial" or "genocide memorial" or "armenian genocide memorial". In an encyclopedia, it should be ok to state a definition, followed by history, relations to other concepts, any other interesting links. No? Just my memories of the Britannica..

Sorry, but can you show me that quote? I just spent 10 minutes on the memorial's website and I can't find anything like that. It says it is "The nation's first memorial listing the names of all the fallen American service members in Afghanistan and Iraq". It talks about the city council making it a "permanent memorial" after having started out as a temporary or ad-hoc memorial. The website contains links to six newspaper articles; none of them contains the phrase "perpetual war memorial".

I have no quarrel with the article Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial, and I have nothing but admiration for the volunteers who have put this together and maintain it. My only problem is with this article, Perpetual war memorial, where I simply can't find any verification that the phrase exists, or that it means what the article says it means. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the quote you were referring to - where the principal organizer of the Northwood memorial said "I think it is the first time, maybe in the nation, what we will have is a memorial honoring those who have fallen as the conflict goes on, rather than waiting 20 or 30 years" ? There are three problems with using this as evidence. In the first place he is an interested party, not independent. In the second place he says "I think" and "maybe" so this is not definitive. Third and most important, he doesn't use the term "perpetual war memorial," so it is still unclear where that phrase came from or how this meaning got attached to it. Remember that this discussion is entirely about the Perpetual war memorial article; nobody is criticizing the Northwood memorial. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all due respect to the people that this memorial honors, this article does not meet wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Claims of "first memorial complete before the war ended" in the article (which have been removed) are not supported by references provided. I'm also not finding anything to support this. RadioFan (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I have reversed that removal. IMO while the article is at AfD we should discuss it the way it is. It's true, as you say, that the definition given is not supported by references. But there are also no references supporting the claim that "perpetual war memorial" refers to to the Northwood memorial - which is how the article read with its intro removed. Basically there are no references to support the title phrase, period. There's nothing salvageable here. If we remove everything unsupported, we will blank the article. --MelanieN (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "citation needed" tags to the definition given for "perpetual war memorial," and to the claim that the Northwood memorial is the first in the world to fit that definition. Without verification that this phrase means what the article says it means, there can be no article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice: while it seems that Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial is notable, this article is mostly about that one. I'm not sure there is merit in describing a type of memorial when only one such exists (I appended "without prejudice" to mean that if this proves to be more prevalent in the future, we could re-create; however, I don't think a comparison with the first color movie is a valid analogy in this case). In any case, the referencing isn't enough to qualify the GNG. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courage is contagious (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I have yet to read an explanation of how "Parish Church" and "First Parish Church of America" (bot WL entries) are any different from "P-War memorial", aside from age.[reply]

MajorVariola, I know you meant no harm, but please don't use different names when signing your notes here. It could make people think you are creating a WP:Sock puppet, where a person uses multiple names or accounts, to try to make it appear that more people are speaking. I know this was not your intention - you are still learning your way around here - but sock puppetry is very much frowned upon.

I am puzzled by your recent changes to the article. You added several examples of other monuments to the Iraq/Afghanistan war, some of which are older than the Newport memorial. Does that mean we should delete the claim that the Newport memorial was the first? Also, none of the added examples are referred to as a "perpetual war memorial", so we still have the primary problem, that the meaning of this phrase has not been confirmed. I'm wondering - were you trying to create an article about Iraq War memorials or Iraq/Afghanistan War memorials? If so, maybe the article could be changed into that, by changing its name and removing the unsourced definition of a "perpetual war memorial". --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: If the result is "delete" I suggest userfying it to MajorVariola, so that he does not lose the research he has done on the various Iraq War memorials around the country. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance- An Automation Integrated Idea Exchange Symposium

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

Non notable symposium, contested PROD, un-encyclopaedic language. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable college event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not often I'm lost for words. Per Sodabottle and per nom. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no apparent notability, and no sources showing notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. White

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

Non-notable corporate executive who has served appointive positions on a couple of federal and state boards. Sources are press releases, aggregators like Zoominfo, and articles about other people where he is mentioned in passing. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a founder of Reading Is Fundamental is a very big deal, even if the program is not media-sexy. The housing finance thing looks like a state equivalent of Freddy Mac, which would also be significant. And Yankelovich was a big-time, important firm. This might be a hard article to write up, but JUSTDOTHEEASYSTUFF isn't policy. The GNews hits on Arthur+White+Yankelovich aren't trivial, but more important would be the nearly 1000 Gbooks hits, which even if whittled down still would indicate enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rational. Co-founding RIF is enough to make him notable. [8] Everything else is gravy. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference does not cite his involvement with its founding, nor do our articles on RIF or Margaret McNamara, only additional 'school volunteers' (and unable to source founding involvement); while he is involved with program at an executive level, I await sourcing of 'co-founder'. Other accomplishments still speak for themselves (see below). Dru of Id (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additionally, his personal website includes highly praiseworthy birthday wishes which speak to his person (lacking in the actual article) from notable people including Hilary Pennington (director, U.S. Program Special Initiatives of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; see http://www.arthurhenrywhite.com/Guestbook.php?Guestbook_CurrentPageNumber_167296=4). Quick google searches on many of the other contributors speak to the importance of this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DW19865 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - nonsense! Notability is not contagious: you don't catch it by association with notable persons or institutions (to address Dru's note below this). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unruly comment. Think of notability as being more like an STD. You don't get it just by hanging around with people who have it, but you can contract it if your involvement is sufficiently substantial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - response on the contrary: most of the people who are involved with a notable person, do not thus become notable. How many people does a Steve Jobs or a Roger Ebert know by name, and think well enough of to wish them a "Happy Birthday!", without those persons thus becoming notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Major directorial involvement with Smithsonian Institutional programs. Dru of Id (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:O.K.; having looked at a lot more off- and on-wiki, under External links, #2 & #7 mention co-founding in passing but likely too long ago to show up indepth without knowing where to look. While notability is not contagious, it is not immune, either. A third of the headlines are him, with mention of the Smithsonian in the body; a third have both in the headline, and a third have the Smithsonian with Mr. White in the body. While the ones with just him in the headline are about his other endeavors, he is notable enough that the Smithsonian did not get top billing. That implies notability, even if not directly stated. Dru of Id (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Colin

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

No references in article. All claims unsubstantiated. Unable to locate any significant, secondary source coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I found a lot of mentions in both english and french for both "denis colin" and "denis colin trio", but most of the results seem to be event listings. The only news results for '"denis colin" review' are [9] and [10], which only mention him tangentially. However, further web searching brings results like: album review, album review, album review - all for his album "Someting in Common". So he's definitely got coverage, he just seems to be the kind of guy who's obscure enough that the sources tend not to be available online. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- More sources: interview in french, interview in english, chicago reader writeup. THAT should be enough for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Swarm ^X 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Coscarelli

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

Some trivial coverage for winning one show, [11]. I really don't imagine that this counts as significant coverage. She certainly does not stand out in her profession - there are hundreds of identically important people who win minor TV cooking shows every day. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of sustained coverage by reliable third-party sources, including The New York Times, several of which focus on her as a vegan chef and a person, not simply a reality show winner. I have significantly overhauled the article since its initial nomination and invite any interested editor to review the article in its current state. (Does it still need expansion? Sure, but there are many sources available for any motivated editor to do just that. AfD is not cleanup.) - Dravecky (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dravecky. agree with the user..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dravecky's edits save the day; subject has coverage in multiple WP:RS, and notability (though thin) is clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ultima (series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtues of Ultima

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

Sourced exclusively to primary sources and other promotional sources produced by business partners. Needs third-party sources in order to WP:verify notability. Could not find any significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. Also fails the policy that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE with extensive lists of game concepts... considering the article is entitled sourced to game guides. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was initially going to propose "transwiki and delete", since this is principally derived from primary sources and provides excessive in-game information. But first, I'd like to highlight some other possible sources. These I found at Google Books: Halos and avatars (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), Quests (A K Peters, Ltd., 2008) both provide significant and, importantly, out-of-universe (WP:WAF) information about the Virtues. Videogames and education (M.E. Sharpe, 2008) and Digital Play (McGill-Queen's Press, 2003) provide additional verification. Personally I think that the topic belongs at Ultima (series), but one could argue that there is enough secondary coverage here to satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Pelit mention near the beginning of the article. Pelit is the largest gaming magazine in its country and several nearby ones. Though not what it was in the Good Old Days, it's quite respectable. It'll take some time to excavate that issue though. --Kiz o r 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well! We now have sources that describe the virtue system as unprecedented, unmatched, a forebear of the morality systems that are now an "industry standard" (to quote the chapter on Ultima IV's virtues in Halos and Avatars), and as proof of the potential of the medium. It also garnered wide praise as an alternative to mindlessly violent games, and yes, there's a source for that. I'll give an unreserved keep for meeting our standards of verifiability and notability. Marasmusine, would you mind hitting me with a fish if I haven't integrated the sources into the article by the middle of the month? --Kizor 10:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, and good luck. Remember WP:WAF! Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy as pie! I'll just go through it and add "fictional character" or "fictional place" before any and all names. :P --Kiz o r 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator made this recent rule change up themselves. Concepts is unacceptable as a restriction. It goes to the heart of the creative process, the thing that makes any work of fiction or storytelling a unique addition to society. Concepts are what make decent works of fiction unique and memorable, and great works a testament for the ages. Mechanics are what distinguish one game from another to a degree, and should have had the notability test applied to them rather than getting a blanket ban, but this is going too far. Planning on getting rid of Concepts in Watership Down? Concepts of Democracy in Republics? Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming? The Concept of the Political? The Concept of Law? The Concept of Mind? The Concept of Irony?

The New York Times article mentioned last AfD, the Computer Gaming World article being used as a cite right now, and numerous Gamasutra articles in Google News, are quite sufficient to verify the article information and show notability. Anarchangel (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it verbatim from WP:VGSCOPE which has been around for years. It's good policy. There are no lists of video game weapons, and articles about items are confined to individual notable objects rather than detailed lists of everything in the game. It's one thing for a singular concept to be notable. It's another thing to have lists of concepts associated with locations where they are found and character classes that use them. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar, but not verbatim. VGSCOPE says:
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
The addition to NOT says:
Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.
Little changes to the text have large effects on the meaning. The former bans "lists gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" and then adds that this applies specifically or in particular to various kinds of minutiae. The latter bans the minutiae in addition to the list. This expands the ban to apply the matters the original didn't: it makes listing the gameplay mechanics that distinguish an RTS title from its contemporaries, or describing an intricate combat system of an RPG in enough detail that the readers understand its significance, suspect at the least.

There's also the statement that a game "should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game." This does not exist in VGSCOPE, neither do words to that effect, nor did it exist when the addition to NOT was made. It introduces demands and problems that are not present in the original: How would you be allowed to describe the variety or inventiveness of a RTS game's units? Take Red Alert 3: A huge part of its appeal is being able to shoot battle bears out of cannons to attack samurai with lightsaber katanas, but that is completely incidental to the actions the player takes to win.

VGSCOPE is good policy, but I do not feel that the addition to NOT reflects it. Shooterwalker, what would you say to replacing this list item with a note on "Instruction manuals", saying "See also WP:VGSCOPE for writing about video games" or something similar? That item is mostly about video games anyway. Other opinions are also welcome, to make sure that I'm not just butthurt about this AfD. --Kiz o r 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being respectful. I do appreciate it... considering how many people disagree and turn it into an all out war. I'm okay with what happens to this article, even though my preference and your preference are different. As to WP:NOT I think it makes sense to put it there just because people commonly cite WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason for keeping out lists of weapons and items, and not just when it's presented strictly as a "how to". But if I somehow mangled the wording that's my mistake. Was it just the injection of the word "also"? I think it almost goes without saying that some details can be important, and some details aren't. (So maybe one key game unit is cited in third-party sources as the reason why the game is so fun or innovative.) The point is that a complete list of every weapon or vehicle or unit in the game isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. (Which is my issue with this article, having listed and relisted the virtue system in multiple games in the series, with tables of where they are found and such. Again, crossing over from explaining the innovation of the system towards explaining every detail in that system. A WP:GAMEGUIDE.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In early 2007, just before VGSCOPE was invented, there was a helpful section on that page to direct people who wanted to move game content away from Wikipedia, which discusses how to mark up WP content for inclusion on, say, Wikia. 16 January 2007

"To help remove information that might read as a game guide, please add the {{gameguide}} tag to the article in question.

When moving content:

These gaming wikis all run MediaWiki. Thus, you can easily copy wiki text from Wikipedia. However, you should remove Wikipedia-specific code such as interwiki links, category tags (unless the category already exists at the other wiki), and template calls (unless the other wiki has a similar template). You might want to keep Wikipedia image tags and then reupload Wikipedia images to the destination wiki.

If you are not the copyright holder (if you are moving content submitted by another Wikipedian), then the GNU Free Documentation License requires that you preserve the History by crediting Wikipedia, in a way similar to Comixpedia:Template:Credit. The best way to do this is to mention that part of the wiki page is from Wikipedia and provide a link back to the Wikipedia article. For example:
This page uses content from the Wikipedia articles, Gameplay of Doom and List of enemies in Doom.

Note that those are urls, which now lead to the empty page with the deletion notice at the top. The actual titles of those articles were Gameplay of Doom and List of enemies in Doom

So you can see, WP:Consensus can change really is true. One would have to go further back than 2007, I think, to see where Wikipedians began to decide to move game articles off of Wikipedia and onto other wikis, though, as the helpful wiki export walkthrough shows. Anarchangel (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right word? Walkthrough? It is sort of a How-To Guide. I'm sure many found it quite useful. Anarchangel (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - the article is far too much of an extensive coverage of purely in-game info without any relevance or connection to the real world. The relatively small amount of info relating to actual commentary on the system could and should be limited to the main article; this extensive sort of coverage is more fitting in a game guide. If this does end in keep, I'd certainly encourage participation in a merge discussion on the talk page. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarize at Ultima (series) using the book sources above as a guideline. I'm not opposed to a standalone article, but it would need a significant rewrite to be reconciled with WP:VGSCOPE and WP:WAF. There is enough coverage either way. Marasmusine (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator my first preference is still for deletion. That's consistent with the policy on WP:GAMEGUIDEs, the video game guidelines at WP:VG/GL, and the policy that you need significant information about reception and WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. But in the spirit of building consensus, I would weakly support a merge to the Ultima (series) article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in summarized form (only what's sourced to third party sources) to Ultima (series). Current coverage is excessively based on primary sources, and what's based on secondary sources is too short for its own article. Sandstein 06:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far I've cut out some fat and done sucky work in integrating the found third-party sources. I believe that properly covering the subject (and we have the sources to do that) will take more space than the Ultima article can give. The virtues' descriptions can be trimmed further once I get out of bed tomorrow and caffeinate, but the article will have to gain stuff about character generation (vital - it's based on ethical dilemmas, which is fabulously rare) and the way virtues are tracked and practiced. There are sources for both of those. The sources also have some interesting material on how the concepts of implicit and explicit curricula relate to Ultima IV, and that could be added. We should also keep on covering alternative virtue systems and the perversion of the virtues: their importance to the depiction of virtues in the Ultima series makes concise summaries warranted.
So I guess I'm saying that this article should stand alone, and if this AfD ends in a merge, that decision shouldn't be taken to be final and irrevocable. The article may well be improvable enough to change that situation. --Kiz o r 01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.V. Dalling

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Creator of an insignificant invention who has not received any coverage outside of New Brunswick. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I admit the article is weak when it comes to the notability guidelines, but I think it contains an interesting bit of history, in that it talks about local adoption of the telephone, and its sourced. Keeping individuals who serve as anecdotes about history and the adoption of technology will improve the quality of wikipedia. Monty₈₄₅ 03:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - locally notable, but doesn't meet WikiPedia's guidelines. PK T(alk) 14:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MicroDreams Foundation

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 06:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref #2 may contain evidence of notability given the assertion that references it, but I have no way to check what it actually says to see. Monty₈₄₅ 07:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The current reference #2 is a the Samoa Observer in which the coverage is decidedly minor. I believe the original reference #2 was "SPBD: Samoan Tsunami Relief. Microfinance Pasifika, p. 1." based on the article history. However, I would not count Microfinance Pasifika as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While numerically more users are in favor of retaining this, those making arguments to keep it have not presented valid, policy based arguments that back their position. That this group may be notable enough for an article sometime in the future is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Writers

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

Delete. Article about a regional literary co-op, club, or association. None of the references provided mention the group. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article needs significant coverage of the writer's club. At this point, none of the sources provided indicates notability of Walden Writers, and the writers within the group, for the most, lack notability. Cind.amuse 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like this plucky group's response to globalisation and think this the page about this co-op deserves to survive. There are now links to literary festivals they have contributed to. They are an interesting but disparate group. Meeraman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that more material has been added to demonstrate the co-operative's notability and the notability of the authors. It's a Work in progress Troglopedetes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- While information has been added to the article, the sources merely confirm existence of various nonnotable authors. None of the sources establish notability of the organization. Cind.amuse 08:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thiought I'd add to the debate. The group contains influential writers and the fact that the press hasn't picked up on them is more of a reflection on journalists and the time it takes to search out refs than the true notability of the group.... which contains the author of THE book on Children's Lit and several award winners. I think - if allowed - this page will evolve and be a useful contribution. Africawallah (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1st April 2011 2.30pm[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination rationale. This is a walled garden in the making, viz: "The co-operative was set up in 2008 to cross-promote the work of its members, to organise literary events, to exchange information and to give one another mutual support." Whilst not denying that some of the authors in the cooperative may be notable, the SPAs namely Meeraman (talk · contribs), Enrevesado (talk · contribs), Cmulley (talk · contribs), Troglopedetes (talk · contribs), Africawallah (talk · contribs) all seem to be "cross-promoting and mutually supporting". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Advisors

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

I don't see how this meets WP:COMPANY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. bender235 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a couple more references, but I think ref #3 in particular goes to notability, and if the Mundy article is merged in, #2 should also, if it doesn't already. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is about a real estate and business consulting firm. The references are to appraisal business journals with small, specialized readerships. The chief claim to fame here seems to be the business's associations with notable events like the Exxon Valdez spill. That still does not establish that this firm itself had a significiant effect on history, culture, or the field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If correctly sourced, the article could stand up. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, there is no indication of notability, neither in the sources cited nor in the results of a Gnews search. Perchloric (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Osler

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

Non-notable journalist. This seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E: the only significant coverage of him in reliable sources relates to a libel case against him, which was dismissed (see [12]). That isn't sufficient to pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Can this information be used anywhere where the article could be merged, such as to an article on the court case, on Kaschke (who seems to have sued several others as well and could be notable), or a general article on internet censorship in Britain? If anyone can come up with a sensible location, this would change to a Merge and Redirect !vote for me. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, of the 2 "keep" !votes one was conditional and the other was not based on any policies or guidelines. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Alley Cats (doo-wop group)

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

No indication that this group meets inclusion criteria. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be documented by good sources, keep, becuase they meet WP:MUSICBIO as having toured - Vegas, White Hosue, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep international band, toured in USA... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey

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

Does not satisfy WP:NSONG. The article has been unsourced since 2009 and has been unedited since June 2010. Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The limitation of the own EP clarifies that it does not meet the required notability level to have an article in Wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this title should redirect to the disambiguation page; if this article is kept, it should be renamed to The Grey (EP). 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Info doesn't warrant its own article, doesn't seem to be a major release. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steamworks (gay bathhouse)

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

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Not altogether convinced that this meets WP:N. It's a place of business that, like many similar places of business, had a bit of a county council licensing hiccup - no real earth-shaking legislation resulting from its licensing struggles or anything. The only source - aside from a couple of brief newspaper articles wholly concerned with the licensing struggles and the bath house's own website - is a LGBT-themed travel guide. The place certainly exists, but so too does the van down the street from me that serves Mexican food. I don't think that being mentioned once in a local newspaper is automatic notability. Perhaps other people see it differently? Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make into a disambiguation page. Yes, true. Turns out there are at least three establishments, all gay, all bathhouses, and at least two of them notable.
Los Angeles 1 of 13 Google News hits for Steamworks Los Angeles, no quotes. The Sacramento Bee

Berkeley 1 of 17 Google News hits for Steamworks Berkeley, no quotes. Bay Area Reporter

Size matters as sauna plans to build next door; 10 April 2002. Edinburgh Evening News
Gay sauna legal row’s an open and shut case; 17 May 2002, Brian Ferguson. The Scotsman

Anarchangel (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May be appropriate in a guidebook for gay people visiting Edinburgh. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only indicators of notability fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. The kind of boring-routine news coverage that fills the local news sections on days when nothing really happens. At least in the US, you can find similar local news coverage whenever a strip club or adult video store finds a hole in suburban zoning, when Mrs Murgatroyd gives her annual presentation to the Garden Club on the wonders of edible aspidistra, or the recurrent biographies of the high school football coach (especially in Texas) who wins the league championship every two or three years. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should not be", and this is not, a news story. WP:NOTNEWS forbids articles be written about news reports; it does not preclude news reports from being used as RS, or to show N, as should have been obvious. It is surely sad to someone that you are bored by news. Who knows, maybe they will stumble over your little SOAPBOX about it. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leftover cruft from the Ash (talk · contribs) era, should have been tossed long ago. Scant mentions in local sources for multiple "businesses" of the same name do not warrant a disambig; the target articles themselves would never pass notability. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem + assertions of Cruft with no facts (going backwards through the Cruft arms race timeline, we find each and every cruft warrior agrees: WP:Cruftcruftcruft-"editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it.". WP:CRUFT2-"Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be "cruft", should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed.". WP:CRUFT-"this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies")

Local Edinburgh sources? Edinburgh, population .47 million? Please. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Berkeley, except that it is also across the Bay Bridge from the San Francisco offices of the Bay Area Reporter, and L.A., well, it is pretty big. Which does not really matter, because it is hundreds of miles away from the 'local source' in Sacramento. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the "cruft" name-drop, I actually provided explanation, so your red herring essay linkages kinda fall flat. Is that all you have? Tarc (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more convinced that my arguments were red herrings if you were to point out in what way they were inapplicable. It seems that you are implying that asserting no RS was sufficient to back a claim of Cruft; I was under the distinct impression that that assertion was in fact a claim that a dab page would be inappropriate. I disagree on both counts. You pass directly by my showing that the use of the word 'local sources' to describe news sources serving cities with large populations is misleading; "Is that all you have" is more convincing after such arguments have been addressed. I will address any future handwaving dismissals of multiple arguments as the former deserve; this is the one and only opportunity to avert what I currently see as a necessary change in my dealings with such gaming of the system. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tournesol media entertainment

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

Film production company of doubtful notability, but since some (possibly non-reliable) sources are provided, I declined speedy deletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation if the verifiability issue has been resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chen, Hubei

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

There is absolutely no assertion as to why this village is considered notable. While places generally will have some notability, nothing is shown here, and I can find none myself. Delete. (If kept, should be moved to ~~Wangchen, Hubei~~Wangchen (no disambiguation necessary) per WP:NC-ZH (that no spacing is required between pinyinized Chinese characters when describing a single entity).) --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. I generally feel all villages are notable, but this one may fail WP:V. I can find lots of people named Wang Chen, but no evidence that a place of that name exists. Change to keep if a reliable source can be found. Pburka (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the evidence that the village did exist. Pburka (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm not positive on this. It seems according to googlemaps, "中国湖北省武汉市江夏区汪陈" means Wangchen, Wuhan, Hubei, China. I've even managed to get directions from Wantchen to Hubei. [13]--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, Google Maps, and for that matter Google Earth, is not always right. There is no Wangchen Village (汪陈村) in Jiangxia District as Google Maps claimed; see this list of all administrative divisions in the district.

Comment: This village (汪陈村) once existed but was merged into some other villages between 2002 and 2005. See the 2002 and 2005 lists of administrative divisions within Tianmen City. As I have shown you that this particular settlement no longer exists as a separate entity, we would have to insert the wording "Wangchen was merged into _ Village(s)". However, CCP decisions regarding administrative merges/upgrades must be sourced. Unless there is sufficient sourcing (which I doubt exists) indicating the merging, this should not be its own article. Lastly, villages usually have at most several hundred people, which would be equivalent to a portion of a Western-style suburban neighbourhood. So, should WP have articles on suburban residential divisions? No, and likewise, villages should not unless they are spread out wide and far in a particular region. Save for notable villages, this sets a dangerous precedent here on WP in terms of coverage. We don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was once an independent village and now merged with several others, that actually increases the case for inclusion. It's long standing practice and consensus that all population centers no matter what size are notable. Lachine, Quebec was once its own city, but its now part of Montreal but that doesn't mean Lachine is magically non-notable. If it was a village, as you even stated, then most likely Chinese language sources exist. If a similar size village in the United States was up for deletion with English sources easily found, this wouldn't be up for discussion. Don't want to look like we're practicing systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all trying to practise systemic bias...I am of Chinese blood. What I meant by my wording for the sourcing issue was that the CCP, given its size, would probably not care to report on village mergers, which likely occur all the time, as opposed to merging of districts or counties. At most what I could find was a source mentioning that construction of Wangchen occurred for a while in 2009 ("如汪陈村，4月份动工，6月份竣工"), but nothing about merging, which was probably enacted 2003, 2004 or 2005. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our standard practice of keeping articles on villages anywhere in the world that are verified to have existed. In reply to HXL49, deleting this will not magically cause the articles that we should have on larger towns in China to write themselves - Wikipedia is not a zero sum game. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not at all attempting to suggest articles will "magically" write themselves, and I would still prefer that specific mergers are mentioned. Land does not simply disappear. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comment, "we don't have articles on many of towns in China, and should focus on them first before dealing with the hundreds of thousands of villages". A volunteer happens to have contributed an article on a (former?) village rather than a town. Deleting that article will do nothing to help anyone focus on writing the articles about towns that you rightly say are lacking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the standard I touched upon earlier still applies. articles on villages really should identify what is notable other than the fact that X village is located in some location. I think of WP:INFO here. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Stealthysis (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of apparent notability. Could hardly call a (designated) village of at most several hundred inhabitants notable, especially when comparing it to, say, an equivalent-sized suburban residential neighbourhood, many of which have no articles precisely due to the notability issue. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our guidelines are that any populated place is notable. The problem here is that this place does not seem to be identifiable. If this was a geopolitical area, where is a government map? Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm all for geographic places, but there has to be some notability. There are about 370 mentions of "Wang Chen" in the English Wikipedia and except for this article and the disambiguation page, they all refer to people. Maybe if there was a Wade-Giles spelling some historical mention could be found, but it seems a long shot. Article seems a pretty easy delete. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hilton (politician)

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

Non-notable unsuccessful politician and blogger. I can't find much coverage of him in reliable sources; he has been mentioned by the media a few times, but I'm doubful that those mentions add up to notability. See [14], [15], [16]. Being a local councillor, standing unsuccessfully for election to Parliament, and contributing to political magazines, aren't enough for notability by themselves; it's necessary to have been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources, and as far as I can tell he hasn't. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Links shows that the article subject has been mentioned in the news....--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lack GHits and GNEWS of substance. A lot of blog commentary, but appears to lack mainstream media coverage. ttonyb (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews is not an indicator of notability or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tell me how "lack of lack mainstream media coverage" is not. ttonyb (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said.. Gnews IS no indicator of notability or not. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Once again, "lack of lack mainstream media coverage" is. ttonyb (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a never ending debate....to delete this article is not the answer.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, GHITS isn't supposed to be used as an argument of itself, but its totally acceptable to bring it up as part of a rationale, it's fine to use pragmatically, just not as an absolute determinate of worth (a la the examples on the WP:GHITS page). Repeatedly dismissing a valid comment just because it uses GHITS in part isn't as helpful as suggesting why an internet commentator and blogger isn't well covered on the internet. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesnt change the fact that Gnews hits cant be used as an 100% legitimate reason to say Non-notable as the user does above.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that lack of mainstream news coverage is a significant issue, certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its all personal opinions. But this is per fact not a clear cut non-notable article subject. And in part he does pass WP:POLITICIAN.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable blogger and unsuccessful politician. I can find sporadic coverage of a few lame stunts he has pulled, a few court cases which hes been involved in and a couple of occassions where hes been quoted as a commentator, but nothing of any substance which is actually about him. Low level of GNEWS and GHITS indicates that I probably havent missed anything, especially since he shares his name with a retired champion boxer, a sports journalist, a quotable police detective and a Microsoft executive.Bob House 884 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if children by the million sing for Alex Hilton when he comes 'round, he's not notable as a politician, and blogging coverage doesn't seem sufficient.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albie (cartoon)

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

I can information about a book series by this name, and indeed by Andy Cutbill, but I can find no evidence of an animated series. The link where such info can be found is supposedly here (which links to the aforementioned Amazon UK link), but no such info is found at that link. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even bother notifying the author because it's an IP that hasn't been on Wikipedia in almost seven years. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know much about this, but it seems to be real. See [17], [18], [19]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, that's the confusing thing. Links like that do show up (which are actually all mirrors of each other), but the place where one can actually find info about the show is what I can't locate. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to exist in this form. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is too easy. From the program creator's author page at HarperCollins, which is a major and highly reputable publisher: "Andy also created and developed Albie, the award-winning British animated television show for children."[20] Here's a reference to the program on the BBC website [21]. Here's documentation for one of the awards [22]. Apparently it's being "rested" right now by the network that owns it, but it was running last year [23] and artifacts in the Google search results for Albie + CITV suggest it might even have been aired last month. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This exists in the form specified by the Article - support Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this show has been aired within the UK just over a year ago at the least, and as specified, possibly within the last month. I'm sure Cosgrove Hall would have a field day if you told them this didn't exist :) - If you want proof it exists, I'm sure you'd find this, or this, maybe even this, or a listing on an Online Video Guide as proof. Need anymore proof?Barking Fish 02:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Barkingfish.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I suck at googling. Not convinced that most of the sources like Toonhound or BCDB are reliable, but we've at least verified that it exists now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prime (Transformers). (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy (Transformers)

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

This article fails to demonstrate like Emperor of Destruction why it is notable without reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick search found numerous third party references to the term. I added some to the article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers), since it's really just a different language equivalent and the title is applied to all the same characters. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a true statement. Nitro Convoy is not called Nitro Prime in the US, she's Override. Flame Convoy isn't Flame Prime, he's Scourge, Live Convoy isn't Live Prime, he's Evac, Big Convoy is simply Big Convoy in the US, meanwhile the US character of Vector Prime is called VECTOR PRIME in japan... I don't see how you can say "Prime" and "Convoy" mean the same thing. I've given 5 examples of where it is NOT the same thing. Mathewignash (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Transformers character lists. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prime (Transformers). While there are exceptions, "Primes" in Western fiction are "Convoys" in Japanese fiction and vice versa. The exceptions could be noted in a paragraph. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both articles prominently and unambigously state that they are discussing the same thing 'Convoy is the Japanese Equivalent of Prime.', 'The Japanese equivalent of Prime is Convoy.' Assuming thats true I think theres only room for one article and naming conventions & I think relevant canon (although I've never really liked Transformers too much) says it should be Prime. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important character. Many notable references to him. Stickee (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note that, according to the article, 'Convoy' is not a character at all, but a title or honourific applied to fictional characters - sort of like 'Grand Moff' Tarkin in Star Wars. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Changed !vote. Stickee (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers) It's just an equivalent term. Stickee (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you know if might make sense to take this and a lot of other Transformers terms (many of which have been deleted already) and make one article called List of Transformers terms. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land (fiction)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punch Trunk}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Midnight Project (album)}}<!--Relisted-->