Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:51, 6 January 2011

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep , but references from Chinese WP should be copied into this article. Rename should be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebeng Passenger Railway

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

Hada Passenger Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hangyong Passenger Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lacking much references to support article; also "expected to be put into service by 2013" means that it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All content is translated from zh:合蚌客运专线, referance is inhertance from Chinese version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably rename - Railway lines are generally accepted as notable and the Chinese WP article appears to have Chinese references with significant coverage.[1][2][3] I don't know about this "Hebeng" name though. I can't find any English character spelling resembling that outside of WP references. The name translates to "mussels" which matches the translated name in the references.[4][5] There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL violation if future projects are confirmed by reliable sources. In this case, it's already under construction. --Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Addition - Keep the second two articles. (the nom added the second two articles after I typed the above). For the same reasons, except neutral on re-naming.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:RAILROAD, but there's currently little to nothing in the article(s) to verify their existence. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires the existence of coverage of a subject, not that the sources be already cited in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to WP:V and WP:MILL. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article topic would "fail" WP:V only if it's impossible to verify. Not only is it possible to verify the existence of this railway, but multiple sources linked in this AfD verify it and demonstrate notability to boot. WP:MILL is an opinion essay. Besides, a high speed rail line connecting major cities is not by any definition a "run of the mill" topic. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hebeng" would appear to be an abbreviation of "Hefei-Bengbu". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're correct. [6] --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even has coverage in English-language sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep railways are generally notable, and there are book sources that can be found on them. Dew Kane (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DMacks (talk · contribs); rationale was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11)" Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCADA GROUPS UAE

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

Couldn't find anything that indicates this is a notable company. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:29, 6 January 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rewald

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

Possible hoax. No listing of this player at NFL.com nor http://www.pro-football-reference.com (under name and DOB searches). ISBN for the book reference supplied is for a different book. Article creator shares the name of the article subject. Prod removed with a partial google search link given as the reason, but other than a bizarre CIA related story at http://www.kycbs.net/Rewald.htm (which I doubt is a reliable source), I can't see anything that proves notability. The-Pope (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think a bit of the football "career" might not be a hoax, [7], I've been unable to find anything else, and even the dubious CIA story doesn't seem to suggest that he actually played a game at the national level. As there is a lack of sources demonstrating notability under WP:GNG, and the lack of appearances (and verification of those appearances) required by Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football, I don't see an argument for notability. In addition, I'm also somewhat concerned about the potential for WP:COATRACKing the spy material, which would require signficantly more in the way of WP:RS than we have so far to warrant inclusion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per excellent rescue by Pburka, I also will go apply a trout to myself, for a mistaken interpretation of the sources I saw. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless it turns out to be true...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice save, someone's getting a barnstar for that one!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve. Seems to have been the defendant in a sensational court case in the 1980s. Rewald Convicted in Hawaiian Trial Jack Lord tangled in real-life fraud case Press: CIA vs. ABC Ex-Officer Not Guilty In Spy Case Con man Rewald directs a Los Angeles talent agency. Pburka (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article based on some of the sources I identified. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that he is notable - is this now a WP:BLP1E article? Should the real article be about the crime or the company rather than about the person? I see you ~~have~~ had a merge request in the Company->Person direction - I'm thinking it should be merged Person -> Company - only leaving the merge request open for only 7.5 hours isn't very useful, either. I'll leave this AfD open and redirect the Delsort tags to bring in people more used to editing criminal related articles to decide. Reading some of the public comments on one of the supplied sources makes this article a bit of a vandalism target - there seems to be a few people still angry/involved in the case out there. Amazed that the criminal part never made it in the article until now. And Pburka - I'm not doubting your efforts, motives or the reliability of the references you've found - it is just that this is way outside of my normal editing sphere (which is sports or Australian topics), so I'll prefer for others to decide. The-Pope (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you must be convinced of notability? The only thing we're discussing now is whether the article should be named Ron Rewald or Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong. I'll argue that the company is much less interesting than the individual. Ron Rewald was the driving personality behind the company. Sunlin Wong appears to have been sucked in; he immediately pleaded guilty when the house of cards collapsed. Additionally, reliable sources indicate that Rewald's CIA connections predate the company. Additionally, Rewald's history of fraud predates the company. He was already claiming to be a Marquette graduate in the 1960s, as the football sources show. He also had an earlier bankruptcy, but I don't have any more info about it. I think that a quick review of Google news results will show that Rewald was who the press was talking about, not BBRDW. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the extent that there's consensus to move the article to "an article about the event, not the person", I wouldn't use the firm name, it'd be "Ron Rewald investment fraud case" (not quite that), but something that makes it clear that the article subject is about the events (the cons and their related trial and victims). As I read BLP1E, Rewald was a major player in a minor event, and the relevant clause in BLP1E says that in the case where the event is discussed in sources in general via the name of the individual (the example they give is Tank Man), that an article named after the individual may be appropriate. (Struck out material was in error: I was quoting BIO1E, not BLP1E.) More than happy to leave this conversation open longer for additional voices. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm open to arguments about renaming. There is definitely an article worth keeping here, it's just a question of whether it's the person, the company, the fraud case, or several of the above. This was a huge case, and I'm surprised that we have so little about it. cmadler (talk) 13:14, 10 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Guy

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

Play that makes no assertions of notability. Richfife (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'The Dead Guy' has received critical reception, see the G-News archives search result (most of the content is hidden behind a pay-wall). The play was premiered in Europe and in the USA and in my opinion it meets our notability criteria. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 January 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, 13 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite The article as it stands does not indicate notability - makes it sound like it was only produced at one non-notable Denver theater - but the research provided by Vejvancicky indicates it has been widely produced. That information and references need to be added to the article to make it a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 26 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Engelhardt

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

Subject lacks notability. The article currently lacks references. Even Google can find no useful information that can be regarded as an authoritative source. Dolphin (t) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dolphin (t) 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Dolphin (t) 11:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither English nor German Google provide any Ghits for this Marc Engelhardt. Spanish Wiki article is unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSN, and WP:BAND. --Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - google.com found sources (not wp mirrors) for "Marc Engelhardt" bassoon, and google.de found results for "Marc Engelhardt" fagott. I've added three references. - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 7 January 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, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have now been found and added. WP:MUSICBIO doesn't fit classical musicians very well, but this guy has held a permanent position as principal, performs frequently as a guest principal and soloist, and has taught widely. Particularly for a less prominent instrument, this is a distinguished career. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:21, 19 January 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. No support for deletion, this is with no prejudice to a consensus being reached to do a merge in the already open merge discussion. Davewild (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonine Centre

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

I'm kinda split on this one. While shopping centers of this size usually don't have enough notability, the "ugliest in Europe" awards give it some extra notability that other malls like this don't have. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. May or may not be significant enough for a separate article, but definitely significant for a mention somewhere. Either way, that would be better settled in a merger discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cumbernauld Town Centre. The "awards" are for that building rather than the Antonine. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as BBC and other non-Scottish coverage by reliable third-party sources push this over both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 11:07, 6 January 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 List of characters in Sesame Street. Possibly convert into a disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Lou

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

I don't think this character is significant enough in the Sesame Street world for its own article. She's already covered in List of characters in Sesame Street D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street. Jørdan 13:45, 7 January 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, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street, for the NN reason brought up by nom. DubiousIrony ^yell 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and convert to a given name dab page? There are a fair number of Betty Lou's out there, including Betty Lou Who. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 13 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian TV newsreaders year by year

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

Full list is nothing more than WP:OR with no references what-so-ever. Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you are confusing unreferenced with "original research". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful WILLROCKS10 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took the liberty of moving the above !vote, but that's a plain WP:ITSUSEFUL--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and cleanup - the "year by year" is misleading as it's not what you see right away in this massive article. I do believe it is a reasonable stand-alone list subject but the format is a very large mess that needs major editing for cohesion and style.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for cleanup - inconsistent WP:MOS. glutter needs to be streamlined and some sections make more easier to read. --Takamaxa (Talk) 12:59, 7 January 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) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Network of Alternative Financial Institutions

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

fails WP:ORG. no real indepth coverage, they've hosted a few things but lacking coverage about the organisation itself. [8]. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Tech Technicians Football

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

Article is about a high school football program. It's laden with non-neutral wording, such as "Cass Tech has become a must-stop for recruiters," without sources to back it up. Nothing in the article shows that it's particularly notable; there are thousands of prep football programs in the US, but relatively few are notable enough to warrant an article, and nothing here looks any different. It's also far too much detail to merge into the Cass Technical High School article—the table of pro athletes, for example, could be condensed with selected athletes in the Notable alumni section, but not in the length it is currently (and certainly not with the non-free pictures!)—but the title should not remain as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Borderline speedy, high school sports teams are almost never notable. this program looks to have had a number of notable alumni and success- info that can be incorporated into the school's main article. Note: I removed the pictures of the alumni, they all had copyright violations and are up for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools themselves are almost always notable here, athletic programs at high schools are almost never notable. There is no indication here that this program is an exception. I encourage these enthusiastic editors to try another wiki that is better suited for these topics. If one doesn't exist, I'll donate the first five bucks to WikiHighSchoolSports.org if anyone wants to start it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would require a complete rewrite to deal with the NPOV concerns, and then satisfying WP:N is going to be a darn tough road. Some info can be merged into the school's main article, but the rest just doesn't belong here, sadly. There may be a couple of high school football teams that are notable, but it's going to be a rare case indeed and I see no evidence this is one of them. Zachlipton (talk) 06:18, 7 January 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrum

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

Unsourced dicdef, WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply use Google Scholar to verify that this is a notable topic with an abundance of reliable sources available. Improve this stub through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about this notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term shouldn't be limited in such a way (dicdef definition), there's a lot of room for creating and interesting article, see i. e. Readings in Educational Psychology, pp. 18-21. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's currently little more than a definition doesn't mean it's got no potential to be an encyclopedia article. In this case, there is plenty of room for expansion.--Korruski^Talk 09:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very worthwhile article but it is very underdeveloped which is no reason to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souces I'm adding 2 sources I found.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I've added them.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admin looks like a speedy keep (WP:SNOW) to me as no support for OP and additionally the OPs case is now completely undermined as article is now full of sources.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 6 January 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Smith

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

Non-notale actor and singer. None of his roles has been as a major character, mostly halfway down the list of characters roles. And there is no article about the band he's in. There are no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Won a CAMIE Award in 2005 for his role as Johnny in Radio Rob Laird in the television series Drive. Quite prolific as an actor. Among his many film and TV roles, I note 5 episodes of Freaks and Geeks as Todd Schellinger, 3 episodes of Gideon's Crossing as Derek Fitzhugh, 9 episodes of Raising Dad as Jared Ashby, 6 episodes of 24 as Kyle Singer, 2 episodes of Summerland as Tanner, 5 episodes of Joan of Arcadia as Andy Baker, 6 episodes of Drive as Rob Laird (the CAMIE Award). In notable television series, not every actor can be first-billed at IMDB... specially for those series that have been on for a while (first come = first served) but his meeting WP:ENT [9] and his meeting WP:GNG [10] show the article is emminently improvable... and what can be fixed need not be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the award was for Radio (film), but as part of the ensemble, not as an individual. That means "Man Number 3" would equally be a winner on any film that might win an award. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect assertion. The CAMIE Award was not presented to the film nor to "Man Number 3". It was presented to the production company, executive producer Todd Garner, director Michael Tollin, screenwriter Mike Rich, and actors Cuba Gooding Jr., Ed Harris, Riley Smith, Alfre Woodard, Brent Sexton, S. Epatha Merkerson and Sarah Drew. Out of the 61 cast members of the film, 54 were not so recognized nor singled out for recognition. Just icing on the cake of already meeting WP:ENT through multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 12 January 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, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starred in two series and New York Minute; it doesn't matter what else he may have been "Extra 83" in, a starring actor in a major film and television series is always notable. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Starred"? Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He starred in Drive. Doesn't matter if it was bungled, it aired episodes in the United States, thus it is a starring role. Nate • (chatter) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely passes WP:ENT. I mean, how many more roles do you need him to play ? --Ezhuks (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note what began as a one source BLP,[11] has now gone through improvements and sourcing,[12] to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I stand by my keep per the individual meeting WP:ENT, WP:GNG, and pushing at WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ENT though roles and coverage in RS. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley (Muppet character)

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

Barkley was never a highly significant character on Sesame Street and he is already listed at List of characters in Sesame Street D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barkley was a pretty major character in the 80s, as the article seems to confirm. The Muppet Wikia article indicates the book "Sesame Street: A Celebration - 40 Years of Life on the Street" (ISBN 1579126383) is a reliable source for this character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable character, as evidenced by his presence on the official site, which only shows a couple dozen of the 1000+ characters seen on the show over the years. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough character. While it's true that he's included in List of Sesame Street characters, so are some other notable characters with articles hardly anyone would suggest deleting. Christine (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street. Relevant information can be placed here and the fanfare left for the external wiki. Jørdan 13:45, 7 January 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. This kind of article is normally OK if its based on sourced material, since this doesn't seem to be the case I'll remove this one witha note that recreation of a sourced list is permitted Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tayong Dalawa episodes

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

Poorly-referenced listcruft made by an obsessed fan; I know the article may be kept if significant improvements are made, but I don't think that such a list can be considered as notable for inclusion. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I don't think blogspot's a suitable RS, per WP:EL. Blake, the creator could be a Sarahtard like you said, so a check of socks that may have worked on Sarah Geronimo are also worth checking. The only official site I know is the one on multiply, but let's not include that either. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use the real official website as references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. jojophotos the real TD website, howard? Really. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nah, he just did it out of sarcasm. Blake Gripling (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something screwed up, but I was referring to use the ones on the ABS-CBN website. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still I would think of it as more of a sarcastic comment. But are first-party sources considered reliable and/or acceptable per guidelines? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), an FL, doesn't list references for the plot (as a rule of thumb, plots are unsourced since they can be checked out on TV; see another example on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Plot, it is also unreferenced). You can try contacting the original author and make him switch to the official website's links. If he doesn't, that means this still merits deletion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:07, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BangaBhasha

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

There is quite a bit of discussion on the article talk page as to whether this article has the notability for a page here, so I've bringing this to the wider Wiki community. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ due to the inherent weakness of the nomination. Your job, as nominator, is to thoroughly research the notability if the topic, and if you conclude after due diligence that it is non-notable, bring it to AfD. You need to assert that it is non-notable, rather than equivocating. Otherwise, work on improving the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you should have read the talk page first. Google searches (including -wikipedia) give results that are mostly wiki mirrors, and a handful of discussion board posts. A web page about the project indicates it has been inactive for over a year. All this is mentioned on the talk page. You're supposed to be judging the article, not me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not judging you but rather evaluating your nomination. If you conclude that an article should be deleted, then I request that you say so unambiguously. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read your nomination as indecisive. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cullen328 (talk)
    - Comment Procedural nominations are done all the time, and even if the nomination is somehow a procedural error, it does not disqualify the AfD discussion from going forward. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Comment I was not arguing that the discussion is "disqualified" but rather asking that the nominator state his/her conclusions about the notability of the topic, based on the results of their investigation. That's all. Cullen328 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic question about "Procedural nomination." Let's keep this discussion about the article itself, not about how the nomination occured

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request RoninBK, please refer me to a description (policy or guideline) of exactly what a "procedural nomination" is, and what is intended to accomplish. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to debate policy with you in a venue that is not disruptive to the ongoing AfD process here. As it stands, this request is horribly off-topic. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid procedural nomination - a user on the talk page already argued the article should be deleted but never actually nominated it. I agree with that person's argument and nominated for him. The reasons for deletion are already summarized on the talk page so there is no reason I need to state it a second time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After further thought, reading the talk page and searching through Google, I have decided to change my recommendation, as I can't conclude that the software is notable. I did not intend to be disruptive when expressing my wish for a clear nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm sad to say. (It exists!) The problem is that I can't locate anything on the topic that meets WP:V. I feel bad – wonder if I could do better if I could read Bangla and Hindi – but unless some other sources appear, don't see another option. (I think Indic computing and Hindawi Programming System can continue to mention its existence, but it sure would be nice to have a reference in a secondary source.) --Pnm (talk) 05:26, 7 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hufu

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

The subject fails at notability My76 Strat 04:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination My76 Strat 04:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD, and you're the one who nominated it, so you can't vote twice.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically no one can vote at all, since AfD is not a WP:VOTE. My76Strat's comments will be properly evaluated by the closing administrator. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "non-existent spoof product" with a website that briefly existed for barely a year and is now long gone. No evidence this was even especially notable as a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned up and expanded the existing sources, including a link to the defunct page at the Wayback Machine. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This shit is so cash.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.253.181 (talk • contribs) 09:56, January 12, 2011 (UTC) — 184.15.253.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azuma Yunoki

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

I don't believe this character has the significance for his own page, and the character is properly summarized List of La Corda d'Oro characters D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters. Redirects are cheap and some of the content on the list may have came from the character article. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Gwern (contribs) 21:50 7 January 2011 (GMT)
Redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters, there is no reason what so ever for this secondary character to have it's own article. I am going for redirect because there really isnt much to merge that is important, and the summary on the character page should speak for its-self. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Kerekes

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Someone essentially non-notable who for one bizzare reason ends up getting press coverage. At best a minor news story and not a biography in an encyclopedia. E. Fokker (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is more notable than (for example) the drummers in minor bands, students of major scientists and articles on internet memes people have never heard of. This woman is likely going to be discussed and seen in the future. She has met heads of state, been invited to one of the planet's biggest and oldest sports events and been interviewed and reported by virtually every major news agency. If that isn't notable then nothing is.

That is the whole point of notability: are people going to look up to see who she is in the future? In this case she will be discussed in the future and wikipedia needs a biography of her - admittedly more thorough than the one I have written. To delete her page at this time seems self-defeating, especially as she is likely to become a reporter in the future and will need more written about her Torqueing (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot assume future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:BLP1E. If you take away her twitter account she woulld be totally unknown. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A clear cut case of BLP1E. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No real notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cool story. Am sad it doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, so perhaps redirect to 2010–11 Ashes series and include a sentence about what happened in the Media subsection.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:17, 12 January 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 Coromandel Peninsula. Consensus is merge and redirect to the place; that's its listed in fish Kills seems good, but shouldn't be the main place for these. As a separate article, it isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula

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

Fails notability. This is a trivial news event of no lasting importance, and was probably inspired by the telephone game currently making its way around the Internet claiming that various mass animal deaths are "spooky". Even a year from now, nobody will care about this event, so an encyclopedia article is not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. If this were to, by some chance, become notable later simply undelete it. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ until toxicology report is issued so we can determine the long term impact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula under a new section 'Ecology'(?). It seems like a sensible outcome to me. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - no more than a news report at present - with no evidence of sustained coverage or impact. If there is a long term impact which is reported by reliable sources (following the release of a toxicology report or otherwise) then maybe an article will be warranted. To kept the article based on what might happen would be speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Redirect, although I think it's an unlikely search target there's no harm in keeping the history. Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula or relevant articles. If the toxicology reports become notable, then the article may be recreated. I originally create the article because I could not find its contents covered elsewhere here.Smallman12q (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, if there's a consensus here to merge the material into the location article, I don't have any problem with that. I do have an issue with a separate article on the event. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the information to the list of fish kills. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 7 January 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 Arkansas River. Consensus is merge and redirect to the river; that's its listed in fish Kills seems good, but shouldn't be the main place for these. As a separate article, it isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass death of freshwater drum in the Arkansas River

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

Fails notability. This is a trivial news event of no lasting importance, and was probably inspired by the telephone game currently making its way around the Internet claiming that various mass animal deaths are "spooky". Even a year from now, nobody will care about this event, so an encyclopedia article is not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just added it to the table in Fish kill. It is extremely minor compared to other incidents that don't even have (or perhaps merit) articles. Mention in Fish kill article table ought to be good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems made up/ unnotable. Looks to be related to the above(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula) Sumsum2010·T·C 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Since it occurred a week ago it is difficult to judge the long term impact. The toxicology report isn't even out yet. It has been reported in New York newspapers and on NPR. Unlike the nominator, I don't have a crystal ball to see the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Arkansas River. It is an important information, however, it is too recent for a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It's actually mentioned here. Maybe it could just be moved to the river article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article about the river is a more suitable place for this unfortunate event. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to relevant articles. If the toxicology reports become notable, then the article may be recreated. I originally create the article because I could not find its contents covered elsewhere here.Smallman12q (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, if there's a consensus here to merge the material into the location article, I don't have any problem with that. I do have an issue with a separate article on the event. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already merged into fish kill and started bird kill for the recent bird death articles. They never seem to be more than a paragraph each, so lets have one big article listing the occurrences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 7 January 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. Just needs some cutting down. No need to delete a perfectly good topic. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Pakistan

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

Despite attempts to clean this up, this article remains an unverifiable mess. No RS, no cohesion, PROD declined, August 2010, no improvement since then. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the messy stuff should be deleted, but that still shouldn't be reason to delete the entire article. We can cut it down and leave it as a stub, the topic is worthy of being kept. Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has identified issues with the currect article content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than any reason why we should not have an article on this subject. If you want sources you could start with the chapters on the topic in The Cambridge guide to Asian theatre (ISBN 9780521588225) and The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre (ISBN 9780415059336). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 7 January 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. NW (Talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Checa-Calvo

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players (has never played an ATP Tour tournament main draw match, has not won any ATP Challenger titles, and was not a world top three ranked junior or junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 6 January 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, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played ATP Tour therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Transformers (TV series)#Cast and characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kremzeek

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

Extremely minor fictional characters without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE - I see nothing these character have in common. We have a characters from 3 different tv series and a comic book character. Their they shouldn't be deleted as a group. Mathewignash (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they've got nothing in common, why are they all in Category:Decepticons? If you really want me to un-redirect the AfDs so they're five separate ones again, that's fine. However, they do have something in common - they're all non-notable characters with no reliable sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD unbundled. This AfD is now for Kremzeek only. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although not very notable, some would need redirecting. Since I would redirect them all DIFFERENTLY, it would in insane to keep them all bundled. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to The_Transformers_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters. Mathewignash (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources have page numbers, and there are very few. I am not sure that notability has been established.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeor Delete minor characterDwanyewest (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character, notability not established by reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:24, 13 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Collins

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

Contested PROD. Autobiography. No significant coverage to confirm he meets WP:BIO criteria. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suspect that BAFTA award he won (for Visual Effects, with two co-winners) could make him notable. I will defer to anybody who is more familiar with the Film criteria, but that sounds notable to me. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 12 January 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, 13 January 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) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe the relevant guideline is WP:CREATIVE in addition to the GNG. That guideline doesn't mention awards, which makes sense given the range of awards out there and the difficulties in determining what awards and categories are sufficiently notable. If there were other sources, the BAFTA might bolster his notability, but we really don't have that here. From Googling, I see no reason to believe he meets the GNG at all, and since the BAFTA doesn't confer notability in and of itself, this doesn't meet the guidelines. A look through the BAFTA articles on Wikipedia shows that many Production Design winners don't have entries. Plus it's an autobiography, which seals the deal for me. Zachlipton (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the appropriate guideline is WP:CREATIVE, it is a difficult standard that Collins does not meet.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 20 January 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. sandsteins comment about V and sources is very compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York

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

There is an identical article at "Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_the_United_States". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Moreover, these Representative Offices are commercial entities. Their staff only have business visas and none of their staff have diplomatic visas. These two offices are commercial entities passing themselves off as diplomatic entities and they are getting free advertising on Wikipedia. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, then the answer would simply to be to turn one or the other into a redirect. The other article (which is actually at Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_to_the_United_States) is marginally diffferent, however - enough so that a simple redirect may not be the best solution. A merger of the two articles may be the best answer unless there are significant differences which can be made between them. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that two articles with similar (almost identical) content on the same subject are not necessary. Moreover, these Representative Offices are commercial entities and neither have diplomatic status. Their presence on Wikipedia promotes the business called "TRNC". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles are not on the same subject. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States is about the mission to the United States in Wahington, but Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York is about the mission to the United Nations, which just happens to have its headquarters in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the titles should say so. And what about the commercial status (since none of the staff at either of these Representative Offices have diplomatic visas, they are in the United States with business visas, these offices are passing themselves off as diplomatic entities, which they are not. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Phil Bridger's clarification above. The diplomatic non-status of the institution is of course quite irrelevant to this deletion debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia makes it quite clear that commercial entities are not permitted to promote themselves on Wikipedia. There is duplication and this commercial entity passes itself off as a diplomatic entity. Would you like me to raise a separate deletion request concerning its commercial status? This I can do. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against having articles about commercial entities on Wikipedia, and our article does not claim that this is an officially-recognised diplomatic entity. Whether this mission makes such claims outside of Wikipedia is immaterial to the question of whether we should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the first sentence in the article says "The Representative Office of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in New York City is the de facto mission of the TRNC to the United Nations Organization (as well as a de facto Consulate-General)." Does that sound like a commercial organisation to you? To me it looks like Wikipedia not only wholly applauds the passing-off of these Representative Offices as diplomatic entities but encourages the passing-off of these commercial entities as diplomatic offices. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase de facto makes it clear that this is not a legally recognised diplomatic mission. And, anyway, your whole argument here is based on an issue of content, which can be fixed by editing. The issue that hasn't been settled is whether this mission passes our notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the fact that the entity is being sued in a Class Action makes it notable enough! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept that the subject is "notable enough" then why are you asking for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning the necessity for there being an article per Representative Office of the TRNC which also happens to be a commercial entity. Why do you need two articles for these Representative Offices? They are representing the same thing. They are "de facto" doing the same thing. Bearing in mind that whatever the "de facto" they are doing neither are recognised by the United States or the United Nations and there are no diplomatic conversations going on between any of them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Fut Perf has just rem'd the section about the Class Action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_New_York

Apparently, Fut Perf doesn't think that the Class Action is notable enough and that it should not be included in any mention of these offices. Well, that puts the notability back in question. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:22, 4 January 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, Sandstein 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I read through both and they are clearly different. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are they different? They are both representative offices of a single commercial entity. Both are setup with staff with business visas. Neither has any diplomatic staff. Nor are any of the staff recognised in any diplomatic capacity by the United States or the United Nations. Their only differences are "window-dressing" that they use to pass off their unearned "de-facto" diplomatic status of doing everything except diplomacy. I say again. Why is it necessary to have two articles for two representative offices of a single commercial entity? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, otherwise delete: If it is a representation to the United Nations, then I vote for renaming it so that the name reflect the content. Otherwise there is lack of notability and it can go as a subsection in the main article. -- Ashot ^(talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate your input on this. The New York office purports to interface to the United Nations. However, that is a sham since the United Nations does not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" nor does it recognise the commercial entity that is called the "TRNC" with "Representative Offices" in New York and Washington. The only thing that is notable about these "Representative Offices" is the pending Class Action against them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I can understand your motives (and partly share them). However my position is that if there is something of interest to a considerable number of people (regardless of who those people are), Wikipedia should have an article about it. All other info (like legal status, nature of activities, etc.) may be then incorporated within the article so that the reader is aware of it. I prefer to look at Wikipedia not with eyes of a lawyer or judge, but of a person who may once need to learn the information. -- Ashot ^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no reason that I can think of as to why these "Representative Offices" cannot be listed together in one article. Functionally they are no different. Diplomatically they are impotent. Commercially they are one entity. Just because one office claims to interface to the government of the United States and the other office claims to interface to the United Nations (when neither does in actuality) is not sufficient reason to have two separate articles for these offices. As far as my motivations are concerned I have already achieved my objective which is to make sure that everybody knows all of the above (whether or not the Wikipedia community deletes one of the articles or not, is by the by, it still remains that the knowledge that these offices are a sham is now in the public domain). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having been asked for my opinion. let me say that the current inclusion of these articles in the displayed box Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus strongly suggests that Wikipedia is claiming diplomatic status for this office, which is not the case. The box needs to be dropped, and the commercial nature of this office carefully noted in the text. As for notability, there are many Wikipedia pages covering equally insignificant subjects.--Wetman (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cause the status of TRNC is illegal in Cyprus, against official Cypriot government, and a plenitude of articles related to it aims only to the promotion of TRNC. They can be listed together in one article. There is no value-added by listing both offices in separate articles, something that definetely under-value Wikipedia. Thank you.Greco22 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if you want them treated together, you can't vote "delete", what you want is a "merge". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same difference. I will agree to Delete or Merge as long as the Class Action is mentioned in the merged article because there is nothing else that is notable about these "Representative Offices". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We allow individual pages on embassies and consulates on Wikipedia. The fact that the "TRNC" is not recognized by any country except Turkey isn't really an issue here, as we also have articles on a variety of other non-recognized de facto embassies, such as e.g. the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and others. Despite not being afforded diplomatic immunity these do play an important role in representing their respective countries, and fulfill many of the consular functions, such as issuing passports and notarizing documents, that official embassies do.

Reading the discussion above I would hope that editors would put more effort into distinguishing between their personal beliefs regarding the legitimacy of the "TRNC" and the issue at hand - whether or not an entity is sufficiently notable to be covered here. Something can be completly illegitimate, morally wrong and unjustified, and still deserve an article on Wikipedia - in fact we have quite a number of such articles. The fact that and article exists is neither an endorsement of nor a justification of its subject.

If the text in the article(s) as such have information in them that is deemed false, then those facts should be corrected but this should not be cause to delete the entire article. Travelbird (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Personal beliefs" have nothing to do with it. There is no reason why two "Representative Offices" that are part of the same commercial entity cannot be written about in one article. The offices cannot be distinguished with the claim that one interfaces diplomatically to the United States and the other interfaces diplomatically with the United Nations because neither have any diplomatic relations with the United States or the United Nations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These offices are not commercial entities. And the people working there are not businessmen despite having a business visa, just in the same way that William Stanton is not a social worker, despite legally being the head of a registered non-profit organization (the American Institute in Taiwan), which also interfaces with the Taiwanese government despite not having diplomatic relations with it. It +is+ possible to talk to meet one another despite not having diplomatic relations! Travelbird (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These offices are a commercial entity without any doubt whatsoever. The official positions of the United States and the United Nations are that there are no diplomatic relations or conversations going on between them and the "TRNC" period. Would you care to provide citations concerning these unofficial diplomatic communications? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient citations at North Cyprus to accept that the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) is a de facto state (i.e. despite a lack of official recognition by other governments and world organizations, the geographical area known as North Cyprus is effectively governed by an entity called the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus). Because this entity seeks recognition in an international community, they maintain missions in key locations, including New York (where they can interface with the United Nations) and Washington DC. Whether or not these missions have official diplomatic status is irrelevant to their notability -- the missions exist, and they have separate purposes and separate agendas and can easily support separate articles. Arguments to the contrary reflect a non-neutral viewpoint regarding the legitimacy of TRNC's aims and objectives. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't make any difference whatseover what their purposes and agendas are. They cannot achieve their purposes or agendas because they are not diplomatic entities and have no formal diplomatic relations. You could place a small citrus fruit in the middle of Central Park and call it a diplomatic mission and it will be just as effective as either of these "missions". They are an ineffective business entity that can just as easily be discussed in a single article. I am not disputing notability since I believe that the pending Class Action makes this business entity notable. But there is only one business entity and as such there should be only one article. You wouldn't write an article for every single building owned by Coca Cola. My opinion is not a non-neutral POV. Show me where all of the notable offices of Coca Cola are listed. There are far more notable offices of the business entity called Coca Cola than there are of the business entity called the TRNC. Why don't they get equal consideration? What these "missions" claim to be doing and what they are doing is as big as the difference between the company called Coca Cola and the small citrus fruit in Central Park. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V; after two weeks on AFD the article has still zero sources and is thus unverifiable as well as presumably non-notable. That is a much more serious problem, in Wikipedia terms, than any speculation about the subject's official status or lack thereof. Sandstein 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on references: Funnily enough I had placed a whole bunch of references in the article concerning the Class Action and Fut Perf deleted all of it. Now Travelbird has listed one reference from the TRNC PIO. The TRNC has given itself a reference. Any reference from the Republic of Turkey or the "TRNC", concerning this subject, is a self-reference. As I have noted before only the Class Action makes this article notable. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:02, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological Urbanism

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

Appears to be an article existing only to call attention to this new term. This is a "project" that was created in May 2010 at Harvard. Almost all the references are from Harvard, and while the article states the book has been reviewed, the references do not really prove this. (And a link to a blog does not suffice as a reliable source. Until there can be reliable neutral, third-party sources, I do not think this article deserves inclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about two things, the book entitle Ecological Urbanism, and the subject - taught at multiple colleges. All of this is referenced. The book by itself has enough third party reviews to warrent inclusion. Add in the topic of it now being a college course, and I think there should be no question in the notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is unclear as to what they're talking about: the book or the "project". This needs clarity. But are there other sources other than just Harvard? — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is very clear in the article that "Ecological urbanism is a project started at Harvard University Graduate School of Design, including a book, conference and exhibition"--Cuttingedgethinking (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)— Cuttingedgethinking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Keep These references were made within the text. Expanding these references post-haste might be suggested as well as listing others:

"The phrase appeared in April 2003 at a conference at the University of Oregon,[1] and again in 2006 in a paper by Jeffrey Hou.[2] The phrase was used by Mohsen Mostafavi in 2007 in Intervention Architecture[3] and in a lecture at the Canadian Centre for Architecture,[4]" ....Good luck to you.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search shows the term used elsewhere as well. Is the coverage for the book and the conference at Harvard notable? Is it just local papers or do those elsewhere give it adequate coverage? Can anyone who works at Harvard or go to school there publish a book and have a conference about it, getting mention for this in the school's paper as well as the local newspaper? Has the book been reviewed in any reliable sources? Metropolis Magazine is a free magazine and the other two places mentioned don't have Wikipedia articles about them, so I have no idea if they are reliable or not. Getting printed in a free magazine which is mostly ads, doesn't really count towards your notability. Dream Focus 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references seem adequate, especially the academic courses on it, to establish it as a significant approach or subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tandy

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

I can't find any sources to suggest that this actor is notable, and I cannot verify an appearance in Eastenders or the existence of the character he supposedly played.

The article was recently edited by an IP connected to a prolific hoaxer, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User_creating_apparent_hoax_articles. I don't know if that makes this more suspect, but it's what drew my attention to the article anyhow. Fences&Windows 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not fully convinced this is a hoax. If so it stretches to IMDB and eBay, which is either awfully ambitious for a hoaxer or someone mistakenly added that based on bad info here. That said though, it seems a case where even the basic info is tough to verify, much less compose a full biography supported by reliable sources (neither IMDB or eBay are, obviously). Even with the hoax issue set aside, we have a fellow with an acting career supposedly spanning five decades but who apparently never had a susbstantial part, and played almost exclusively unnamed roles (doorman, gateman, man in car, various unnamed cops). If that's true I bet he's had some great times and likely a lot of interesting stories about his brushes with show biz, but I'd also say he's solidly out of scope for a general interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just happy to see that he existed, thanks! That EBay photo is enough for me to know he was real. Notable - no way. Fences&Windows 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played a regular character in EastEnders for two years, so yes he did have a substantial role in at least one programme in the 1980s, and at a time when the show was getting around 25 million viewers an episode, which is huge for the UK. He may not be known by people today and he may not have been written about in the press since the advent of the Internet, but that does not mean he is not notable as an actor.GunGagdin ^Moan 04:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify his role in Eastenders using reliable sources, please? Even if he was in that role, it was not substantial as it left no trace behind among fans or the media. No blogs, books, news articles or web pages talk about him or the character. Web searches are very good at picking up even slight traces of TV actors, and there's nothing of Tandy out there outside us, eBay and IMDB, Wikipedia mirrors and directory sites. Fences&Windows 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only provide off-line sources in books. But just because he has not been written about now, does not mean he was not notable during the 80s while he was in EE. Sadly sources from that era will not be easily available, but it doesnt mean there arent any. I have no passion for keeping the article to be honest, but just wanted to add that the character is known among older fans and, given the high ratings of the show during his stint and the red-top obsession with EastEnders at that time as well as his two year duration, I think it's highly unlikely that the actor was not referenced in the press during his two years. I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time arguing to keep the article because as I said above, I am not too bothered if it stays or not as it says nothing that IMDB hasnt already said, but just felt that a different perspective may be useful.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Offline sources to books is perfectly fine with Wikipedia. Specially for someone whose career predates the internet by several decades. Can you add them to the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is a hoax, since he is listed at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0849208/ and surely in the credits of everything he has been in. He had enough appearances in Eastenders to count as notable. Since most of his work was done in decades past, hard to know what role he played in them, and if it was just a bit part or something significant. Dream Focus 03:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I think he's just notable enough. Needs better referencing though. Fences and windows makes a good point but the internet's slightly less comprehensive for actors who weren't on screen in the last decade or so. When Tandy was in Eastenders, the internet looked like this. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: squeaks by WP:BIO. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of his roles look decidedly minor, and in the absence of any real coverage we simply don't have a basis for an article.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If it's a hoax, it's a very elaborate one. If not, there's enough coverage to squeak past 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD G4 and G5 This article has been recreated 11 times by User:Melissadu, as Sarona Reiher or Sarona Snuka, using her own account and various sockpuppets. This is simply the latest sockpuppet recreation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarona Reiher

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:ATHLETE. Was previously deleted as a result of a previous deletion discussion. Article should have been Speedy deleted as it appears to be the same article with a couple of different non-substantial references; however, the CSD was removed by another editor. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 6 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel St. Pierre

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

Non-notable hotel / building(s). This was orginally deleted (twice) via copyvio. The copyvio issue has been cleared via OTRS, but the article is essentially unreferenced (only reference is to the jazz club). Only claim of significance is National Register of Historic Places, but NPS.gov search returns nothing. NPS email reply confirms that the building is only included in National Register because of its physical location within a historic area. Zero secondary coverage to establish notability. 7 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find coverage of the hotel in older newspapers [13] and a few books: [14], [15] and [16]. Let's give this one a chance to be saved. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, it will have to be renamed as there is more than one "Hotel St Pierre". As St. is short fort "saint", you can find more of them.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 January 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, 13 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only because of Regent's findings: nothing else is appearing that I can find. It's a contributing property to the National Register-listed Vieux Carre Historic District, but neither the form used to nominate the district to the Register nor the form used to nominate the district for National Historic Landmark status say anything about this hotel. Nyttend (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Karofsky

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

Marginally notable individual, half the article is about an unnotable event. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article violates our policy on biographies of living people. This article seems to have been written to publicize a scandal. It also violates our policy on articles about one event. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Cullen328 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Not seeing any claim of notability here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information Control..... What an absolute shame. Power certainly corrupts and the power granted to the socially inept and friendless loners who wiki-monitor this site is limitless and often scary. Can we propose that these editors be renamed The Wiki-Ministry of Information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICENICE (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 January 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 all. Courcelles 07:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crosman Air Mag C11

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

Delete: Article on non-notable random airsoft guns. Fails to meet WP:N by a long shot. The^FSAviator • T 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these page for deletion for the same reason as above:

Delete for lack of obvious notability. The sourcing is flawed as well, one article is sourced to myspace, for example. There might be salvageable information, and that could possibly be merged over to Crosman, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: "long shot"... I see what you did there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CA 249 listed above is not an airsoft gun but a redirect. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CA 249 may be a redirect, but the article proposed above is CA249, which isn't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix'd. No space was in the title.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Community consensus is that airsoft guns are rarely notable, and none of these articles provide either a claim of notability or significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:43, 6 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijith (Actor)

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

I reviewed this new article and tagged it to notify the author what was required to keep it from deletion but they simply removed the tags without improving the article. Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines, article is not referenced at all, one external link to youtube. Content is unverifiable due to the above. Apparent COI and NPOV problems. Article falls just short of CSD guidelines, and I see little point PRODing based on the authors actions so far. Pol430 talk to me 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up the article and removed the POV entries and undue praise. I could not find much coverage of him in english language sources. Will search and add if i can find any sources in Kannada language. --Nayvik (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good faith in the efforts for cleanup and sourcing provided by User:Nayvik. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 30 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable even if all claims are true. Subject or someone close to him appears to be involved in the article, so if he or she can't add notability-demonstrating material by now, it's their own damn fault. EEng (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not reach article worthy level of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:47, 9 January 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 William Knox D'Arcy. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Birkbeck

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED. simply being married to someone notable doesn't qualify you for an article. the only coverage i could find was in gbooks which merely confirmed that she married someone famous. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why would we delete when merging into the husband would preserve the information. That is what we usually do when a relative isn't notable on their own. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Richard Arthur Norton. There is no need to use the admin tools to fix this problem. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:53, 6 January 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. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inbaal

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

Media witch who fails to meet WP:BIO - specifically "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Only one source given, to a Sun article. Page has been tagged as needing better sources for a year now with no improvement. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source given seems to be the result of a public relations campaign in support of a psychic TV show. A Google search results in one similar but briefer passing reference. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and write a concise, objective bio from reliable sources. Fair number of good sources, she seems to be a media personality who has some notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven links to the sources identified, three of which are random hits to entirely other subjects. Of the four remaining, one is a carbon copy of a second, leaving three. Of the three, one is the Sun newspaper article which deals at some length but appears to be written from a press release. A second (the one duplicated) mentions her once in passing. The third source is a Daily Mail online 'expose' which again mentions her briefly as fraudulent. I don't myself believe these three sources establish WP:N but if the article is a Keep I'll certainly rewrite it to reflect all three. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at her notability more as a TV performer [17] than supposed psychic, but given that coverage is admittedly spotty, I'll change to a weak keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've included the Reuters mention to add a little bit to her biographical history. I also uncovered a listing of her speaking engagements at a large pagan festival in England, and a cover story for a fairly significant Pagan publication. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:34, 6 January 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. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Round

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

WP:PROMO by User:T4Interactive (or Transform Interactive, the agency behind jeffreyround.com). Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR as well. —bender235 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to AGF here. I believe there are enough reviews out there by independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:BASIC. I'll add these to the articles talk page. I'd also suggest this article be revised for NPOV. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: seems notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua

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

Page contains little more than a copy of Template:Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua making it useless to include this page. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a page whose only contents are a template is useless. JIP | Talk 08:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more to say about Yar'Adua's cabinet between 2007 and 2010 than a simple list of ministers and dates. I believe there were some political upheavals in Nigeria during this period, and the cabinet was not entirely stable. Before nominating, the nominator could perhaps have made an effort to expand the page, or at least to check whether that was possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concern of the nominator and seconder has been addressed without any need for an administrator to hit the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 1 January 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have here is just a news report of actions by the president and his cabinet members. An article on the role of the president of Nigeria's cabinet in general might be a good idea. However just a report on who got hired and fired and who did what runs afoul of WP's "not news" policy. A brief summary of the events (explaining their importance) could be included in articles on the history of the country and in the bio of Mr. Yar'Adua. Borock (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers will be interested in knowing who was in the cabinet of Yar'Adua and what happened during its term. This article gives them that information in the same way that Blair ministry, Brown Ministry and Cameron Ministry gives information about the equivalent cabinets in the United Kingdom. I will not comment on which country is more important today. The content is well-sourced, and the subject is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect or Delete~~ , unless there's something in the history that needs to be preserved. I've gone ahead and merged these (well-sourced) news items into the article about President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, including all citations to verifiable sources. Contrary to what the title suggests, this is not a listing of members of a presidential cabinet, but about several shakeups in the cabinet, including their dismissal by the acting President a couple of months before President Yar'Adua passed away. I praise the author for providing good information on the administration of Nigerian President Yar'Adua, but it doesn't need to be a separate article. Mandsford 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replicated the information from Template:Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua into this article, and have dropped the template from the article. There is no difference in what the reader would see. Is this an improvement? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep As far as I'm concerned, it's an improvement that makes the article consistent with the other articles we have about a particular president's administration. I realize now that I didn't see the template, perhaps because it was one of those that has to be clicked to be displayed. I'll go ahead and revert my changes. Mandsford 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Fairfax

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

WP:PROMO by User:T4Interactive (or Transform Interactive, the agency behind jeffreyround.com) —bender235 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not demonstrated in the article. And it's a fictional character, to boot. PK T(alk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:28, 12 January 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stunners (group)

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

Dubious notability. Sources are only primary or directory listings for the most part, and a search for further sourcing showed nothing but false positives. No real notability; just having individually notable members doesn't mean the band is automatically notable. WP:BAND #6 is not and never will be carte blanche if they fail all the other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Band that has been released by two major labels, Universal Music Group and Lions Gate Music (passing WP:BAND #5; "Has released two or more albums on a major label"), been profiled by MTV and has had other significant coverage by independent reliable sources. [18][19] Even was the opening act for Justin Bieber.[20] Beyond the threshold of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Additionally, meets WP:BAND #6 as the nom has admitted with very notable founder and member. --Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discography does not allege that they have released any albums at all. I make it one EP, one promo single, one proper single and a track on a compilation album. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the Bieber connection needs clarification. If they were second on the bill then that does count in their favour. If they were lower down the billing as "other special guests", or the like, then it doesn't. If they got any RS reviews off the tour then that would be a big help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The MTV profile is a couple of short paragraphs and the rest is not RS. The link to Vitamin C is incidental. The TV series seems not to have happened. The two sources Oakshade has found certainly help a bit. The first may not be RS but the second is better. It is only a local newspaper, and it isn't enough to make this a keep, but it is enough to make it a weak delete. I will change my !vote if anybody can dig up a few more proper reviews or other solid coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Some minor coverage but the MTV source is trivial ~~actually copied from Allmusic~~ plus they haven't had any charting records. Mattg82 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urm actually Allmusic entry is different. I'm sure MTV used to copy from Allmusic? Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources is the biggest problem here. Ei1sos (talk) 21:33, 17 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESERVOIR

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

Ephemeral project. Although individual components may be notable, these temporary collaborations rarely are. At this point, there is not a single source establishing notability, the sources provided are just simple listings of projects. Does not meet WP:GNG, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Crusio (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have edited this article to update it to the current state of RESERVOIR - i.e. the article now reflects the actual abilities rather than speculating where the project will be down the road.

RESERVOIR is currently an important research project - it is considered by the sponsoring European Commission as its flagship project in Cloud Computing due to the breakthrough ideas and actual progress the project has made. RESERVOIR has over 50 published papers to its credit, and has put on over 70 presentations and demonstrations of its technology, so while the project may be ephemeral, it currently stands at the forefront of research and innovation in the world of Cloud Computing. 192.114.107.4 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011

Comment I do not doubt that people collaborating under this project have made valuable contributions (both in print and as "presentations and demonstrations"). However, individual grants like this are rarely notable: just have a look at NIH Reporter to see how many grants (including "center-" and "project-grants") NIH gives yearly and then go see how many of those ever got an article. Only if you can come up with reliable sources that show this project has been noted as a project, would an article here be justified. For the moment, all we have is some directory listings and in-passing mentions. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 4 January 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I noticed this pay source was recently added to the article. It seems like it may provide substantial coverage. Does anyone have access to the article in order to verify that? (If that source is unsubstantial, delete.) --Pnm (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kawalit

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 January 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances and significant coverage, he fails all notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 7 January 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. NW (Talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Jung

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 January 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at the professional level of the sport Spiderone 20:45, 9 January 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. NW (Talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayin Jeffers

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 January 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having only played in semi-pro leagues, he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 8 January 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. NW (Talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Antonini

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 January 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) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability made Spiderone 07:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having only ever played in the non-fully pro CSL, he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 8 January 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. NW (Talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Serrano

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 January 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) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The CSL is not fully pro, and he fails WP:GNG. Therefore he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable sportsperson. E. Fokker (talk) 21:21, 12 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katsap

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just an article about the meaning and usage of a word. This was recognized by the person closing the first AfD, but was closed as "no consensus" with the hope it might "expand." Which has not happened, and if it did would result in an article called something like "Prejudice against Russians in Eastern Europe," not "Katsap."

Transwiki to Wiktionary, which doesn't currently have an entry for "Katsap". Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has. It is at wikt:кацап#Ukrainian. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick Google books search suggests that either "katsap" or "Katsap" is used in English-language texts. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, Wiktionary has the Ukrainian word in the proper alphabet for the Ukrainian language, per project (and indeed ordinary dictionary) standards. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but my point is that this appears to be a word, apparently borrowed from Ukrainian, that is used as an English word in English books in the Latin alphabet. Wiktionary does not have this English word, and the contents of this article on the English Wikipedia could be transwikied to form the basis of the English Wiktionary entry for the English word. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2010 (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) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Article does not extend beyond a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article also describes etymology of the word (I never knew it before). To be logical, if we keep Khokhol, we should also keep "Katsap" and Pindos (another article currently in AfD). Biophys (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DICTIONARY. Discussion of etymology is primarily the task of a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hold strong opinion about this. Being ethnic Russian myself, I certainly do not mind removing ethic slur about Russians that is centuries old. Biophys (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki what's salvageable to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so dictionary definitions (of which etymology is a part) do not belong. Khokhol is different in this regard as the article deals mainly with the haircut style.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2011; 21:40 (UTC)

Delete delete per WP:NOTDIC and transwiki wo wiktionary Neptune 123 (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. J. Bryant

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

Arkansas political candidate, well sourced to local news, which have mostly covered him for his youth. PROD contested by IP, so I'm referring this to the community for discussion: do these sources establish notability? I'm remaining Neutral. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nope. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and any coverage of him is strictly local and is a WP:ONEEVENT deal. Article created by a SPA with no other edits save for inserting Bryant in the hometown article, and I suspect COI violation given the cheerleading tone of the article. Ravenswing 19:27, 31 December 2010 (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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article shouldnt be deleted. One of seven statewide offices is a major story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.8.111 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — 74.194.8.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLITICIANS#Politicians point 2 refers to a major amount of press coverage which did occur because of this candidate's age and ideas. Also, because he won an uphill battle against a veteran legislator. The notability also isn't temporary. The candidate will always be a reference point in future stories about young candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.103.11.109 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — 108.103.11.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Failed candidates for statewide office are not automatically notable, and the coverage found is strictly about the election - not about him. Incidentally, the SPAs have added his name to half a dozen other articles; if he is found to be non-notable, somebody might want to clean those out. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 12 January 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. Article has been edited to cite sources. Sandstein 07:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 Angels

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

Non-notable, unsourced, no third party coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Professor (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination was not completed until 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC). —Farix (t | c) 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is obscure for two reasons: it was never released in the US and it was apparently "CRAP!!" to quote one review. But neither is necessarily a cause for deletion. I'm generally comfortable assuming Japanese-language print sources exist for virtually any anime series, as anime and manga are pretty well covered by the media there. This looks like it might be a place to start as far as sources go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the case as Starblind notes above, I would be reluctant to recommend deletion without the input from editors knowledgeable about anime, and who is also knowledgeable about reliable sources for anime. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's real, seems to be a fairly significant production (wasn't just some guy who drew on napkins and waved them in front of a camera), and that's a poor but somewhat accurate description for our inclusion criteria for anime films. The article just needs work. Everything needs work. Wikipedia is really big. I need to go to sleep. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I gave the article a cleanup,[21] and agree with Andrew Lenahan. Japanese-language sources exist for just about every anime film, even the total crap. We can ask that Japanese reading Wikipedians with access to such assist in additional sourcing. What can be fixed is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the others. Major production, sure to get coverage. Dream Focus 07:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the film may have been released, with only the single review, it does not pass WP:NOTE. I've removed the references to ANN's encyclopedia because it is not a reliable source because the content is user generated with almost no editorial oversight or even basic fact-checking. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to R. Kelly discography. NW (Talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 Play: 4th Quarter

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

This album is not notable as it was shelved it received just two comments from critics. it has an unsourced track listing and many other unsourced claims. Per WP:NALBUMS a short paragraph at the artist's page would suffice and be more appropriate than this independent article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to R._Kelly_discography#Mixtapes. An internet mixtape would not be notable, and that's what this eventually devolved into, even if it was originally a proper album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R. Kelly discography#Albums. I wouldn't suggest a redirect to the "mixtapes" subheading because shelved albums aren't mixtapes. In addition, the reference to the supposed track listing doesn't even link to an R. Kelly album; it links to a Monica album. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:07, 31 December 2010 (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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never released. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:47, 9 January 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. Delete and redirect to Steady state (disambiguation), with appropriate change of wording there; based on a google translation of the Dutch article there is no evidence it is even a significant concept within his theory. I urge someone to do a proper translation of that article, bercause it seems he is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steady State Model

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

Bizzare article which appears to be an instruction manual on how to efficiently manufacture a fighter aircraft. "Steady state model" is a fairly common phrase, so searching for sources leads to a lot of results, some of which may or may not refer to the concept relating to the manufacturing of fighter aircraft. This may or may not be a notable topic, but even if it can be shown to be a notable topic, the article would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Steady State theory. I too can't see how this article can be used as the basis of an encyclopaedic treatment of whatever the subject is (a business model for manufacturing?); Steady state model redirects to Steady State theory, so it would make sense for this title to do so as well; but we don't need the history to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Jan in 't Veld, the inventor of this Steady State Model appears to have published almost exclusively in Dutch – he died while working on a translation of his apparently successful book Analyse van organisatieproblemen (ISBN 9010105644) in which the SSM was introduced – it may be hard to find reliable non-Dutch sources, but there seems to be some significant coverage in: Hans P. M. Veeke, Jaap A. Ottjes and Gabriël Lodewijks (2008). The Delft Systems Approach: Analysis and Design of Industrial Systems. Springer. ISBN 978-1-84800-176-3. I don't know if this counts as "independent of the subject", though; the "Delft Systems Approach" was invented by in 't Veld (as the preface states: "This book is a tribute to Prof. Jan in 't Veld, who is the real founder of the Delft Systems Approach"), and the authors are affiliated with Delft University and appear to be former students of in 't Veld. --Lambiam 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the "Delft Systems Approach" the same as the "Steady State Model"? If so, which would be the better title? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this in any detail, but my impression is that what is called the Delft Systems Approach comprises a collection of concepts, models, and paradigms, of which the Steady State Model is one of the components. If an article could be written about the Delft Systems Approach, into which this article could be merged, that would be an elegant solution, but the amount of usable source material does not look promising. Alternatively, someone knowing Dutch well might be able to translate nl:Jan in 't Veld, which then would be a plausible merge target. (I agree, though, that the primary meaning of "Steady State Model" should be Steady State theory; that could be solved by a {{Redirect}} hatnote over there.) --Lambiam 09:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this does appear to be the correct name for the general topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke? --Lambiam 09:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A slip of the mouse, actually... (blush) Jclemens-public (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 January 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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be an essay, instruction manual, or original research. In any case the article does not provide sufficient context to make it clear what topic the article is intended to cover, and therefore it may be incapable of meaningful expansion by other editors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article has issues, the only real showstopper is the possible lack of notability; the other defects can in principle be fixed. --Lambiam 02:39, 10 January 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 (NAC) E. Fokker (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Dancesport Club

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

Non-notable university sports club ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (COI warning - I used to be an officer in the equivalent Cambridge club, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand Wikipedia policies) The club has been subject to coverage by reliable sources (even though they aren't referenced in the article). For example,

this article from "The Times" about the men getting sporting colours.
this article in the Telegraph
this BBC feature about the match vs Cambridge
this television documentary
this article and this one about a 1998 controversy when an Oxford student wanted to dance for Cambridge.

I am sure that, with enough time, I could dig out other independent references as well (as well as a huge number from student newpapers etc). Bluap (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the above sources to the article, and have also found more coverage in a 1989 women's magazine. I hope that 3 national newspapers, 1 regional newspaper, 1 glossy magazine, 1 regional new website, and 1 television documentary is enough to give notability. I should point out that this is ongoing coverage over a period of more than 15 years, not simply coverage of a single news item. Bluap (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources adequately fulfil WP:RS to assert notability. Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 2 January 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) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources and material to pass WP's standards of notability. A person reading the article will definitely know more about the subject than before. Borock (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks as if the sources now get it over the line. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:55, 6 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra Research

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

Non-notable publisher, sourced to a self-reference. My Google search hasn't come up with any reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intended addendum to Vadim Rogovin and Nadezhda Joffe pages. Latter page mentions this organization but leads to dead link, former page should probably mention this organization, as it is the sole publisher in the author's native language. Recommend merge with another page. Perhaps a single page listing all Trotskyist Publications, but that would seem least favorable. YB1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, not publications, Publishers. Most recommend by far some mention on Rogovin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only in print form as far as I can tell. Once again, it may be best to clip back this article to a sentence or two and place it on the Vadim Rogovin page. For instance, "The sole publisher in Russian of Vadim Rogovin's works is Iskra Research;" with the remaining composition of the edit being fairly irrelevant. I can understand why a whole article may be excessive as it is a very small publisher. Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to deleting this page and sorting out other concerns later, by the way... Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 January 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) 23:57, 5 January 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, NW (Talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --DonaldDuck (talk) 09:08, 20 January 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/Gear Acquisition Syndrome}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebeng Passenger Railway}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCADA GROUPS UAE}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Rewald}}