Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 4 September 2010

< 3 September	5 September >

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Relay Chat admin

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

does not meet the requirements of wp:notability. there are no third party, reliable sources in this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete unreferenced, already (better) covered in the Internet Relay Chat article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, this topic doesn't need a stand alone article. Mentioning on Internet Relay Chat will work. Also no source—Chris!_c/t 01:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John S. McCain IV

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

This was speedied for not making a legitimate notability claim, but an editor who was involved in it subsequently disputed that on the grounds that he was notable "because he was awarded his diploma from the U.S. Naval Academy by President Barack Obama, the man who defeated his father in the race for the presidency". That said, while such a distinction might make for a day or two of "isn't life ironic?" news briefs on Page 99 of the local newspaper, I genuinely can't see how it constitutes actual notability in an encyclopedic sense. You know, WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. Barring a much stronger claim of notability (and much stronger references) than this, I still think it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- As the original author of this entry, I wish to make the following points: First, any member of the fourth generation of a distinguished American military family like the McCains is notable at birth and you can't take that away from him merely by deleting his entry. Second, the purpose of Wikipedia is to make information freely available, so deleting young Mr. McCain is counter to the spirit of the open source publication. Third, as pointed out below, "Jack" McCain has already made the news and he is going to be around for a long time, and he is destined to make the news again, so why not leave his entry open for further additions. Fourth, he is serving his country, and made it through Annapolis and pilot training, which is notable in and of itself, and it is dishonorable to delete him, especially if (as I suspect) none of you have ever served in the Military. Finally, the intense desire to delete this entry shows a political bias and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia.

(P.S.: I voted for Obama. I considered voting for "Jack" McCain's Dad, but after the Senator from Arizona selected that brainless twit from Alaska as his running mate, that was out of the question.)

Delete - Famous father + uses Twitter. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If he has the stuff of Sr, Jr, and III, he'll be sure to have an article someday. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Unless he becomes notable in his own right, he could be redirected to his father's article as it could be a legitimate search term, but if not, then feel free to delete it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of notability. Notability is not inheritable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the diploma incident managed to get a few news notices, notabillity ins't inherited and the news notices mainly make this a WP:BLP1E type thing. A redirect to his father's page seems suitable for now, with whatever minor mention the diploma incident merits there. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already such mentions: the John McCain article says "son John Sidney IV ("Jack") graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2009, becoming the fourth generation John S. McCain to do so;" and the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present subarticle says "In May 2009, John and Cindy McCain attended the graduation of their son John S. "Jack" McCain IV from the Naval Academy, the fourth generation of John S. McCains to do so. President Obama spoke at the ceremony and gave the new graduate an extra congratulatory gesture." Wasted Time R (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Notability not inherited, Sadads (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not inherited from father to son. His father's political opponent speaking at his graduation doesn't satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:GNG. Chances are pretty good that he will be notable in the distant future, given the lineage, but not today. Redirect to his father's article (or maybe even create one called McCain family if anyone if feeling bold). bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only in a monarchy or a strong aristocracy is notability inherited, and that's only because the heirs inherit positions that qualify them under WP:POLITICIAN. Yes, it's impressive to graduate from Annapolis, and even more to succeed through pilot training; however, that doesn't alone make Jack qualify under our definition of "notability". He has to qualify for some other reason, and I don't see any evidence of such a qualification. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probortunity

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

An apparent neologism. It is mentioned a few times in Google Books and Scholar, but I do not believe there is enough for a notable, verifiable encyclopedic article. Ucucha 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay (at best). If the word does exist (and for every hundred neologisms coined, ninety-nine die in infancy), Wiktionary is the place for it. (No, I can't prove that statistic - but you can't disprove it.) Peridon (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I must say though that this one comes closer to being notable than any other neologism I've seen. (Which isn't saying much). —Soap— 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Looking at the author's other edits, it appears he's trying to spruik his own business. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for things made up one day, and it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it looks like it was made up in one day, and I would say it borderline looks like an advertisement of some sort. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mother, Goodbye!

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

Unnotable pilot show Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, not likely to be sourced. Pilots aren't notable unless they get enough attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Hello Deletion, Goodbye Article! I did find an IMDb page which is a reliable source but nevertheless failed to find anything else. Non-notable pilot without enough reliable sources makes me want to say goodbye to this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to North Queensland Fury FC. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Queensland Fury FC Staff

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

list of North Queensland Fury FC staff persons, possibly unencyclopedic.
I would suggest delete or redirect Melaen (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to North Queensland Fury FC. Drewbug (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent article. Giant Snowman 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. To parent article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She Said, He Said (TV series)

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

No non-trivial source coverage. Not likely to become notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should've been deleted after it wasn't picked up after the May 2006 upfronts like all other pilots; nothing notable, all edits since 2006 have been for maintenance and categorization. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find enough sources for this article, non-notable pilot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single one-off pilot isn't notable enough for inclusion. If the producer/writer/director was notable enough, perhaps merits a mention on their page(s). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No real significant strong consensus in either direction at this point in time. Of course, merge discussions may still take place, at Talk:Lisa M. Hansen. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa M. Hansen

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

Was a producer for some Low budget Movies, Anything, Sources are slim other than mentioned she was a producer for X film. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to Create a Biography not a CV...Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CVs are written to present an individual in the best possible light in the pursuit of employment. They offer a history of their professional background that oftentimes establishes notability. This is the same goal of Wikipedia. While this article looks nothing like a resume, it does appropriately establish notability according to WP:CREATIVE. Cindamuse (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a myth that a wikipedia article should or must "establish notability." Rather a wikipedia article should present or summarize information that has been documented about the subject in reliable independent sources. This serves NPOV, a basic and non-negotiable policy. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have a very valid point that I earlier completely misread. In rephrasing my comment above, one of the goals of Wikipedia is to present subjects and articles where notability has been established, and supported by reliable sources according to WP:CREATIVE. Thank you for commenting and allowing me to clarify my statement. Cindamuse (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article certainly needs expansion of the biographical information of the subject. That said, notability is appropriately established according to WP:CREATIVE. Executive Producer of over 70 films and author of a screenplay that was made into a movie. I am not personally familiar with her work, but they all feature notable actors. She is also founder/head of Cinetel Films production company, producing and distributing over 70 films. Cindamuse (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget notability for a moment. In your first sentence you acknowledge the need for biographical information. But if no independent sources about her life or work exist, how is a biographical article possible in conformity with NPOV? Sure, we might be able to construct a CV for her. But wikipedia is not the place for CVs. As you said yourself, "CVs are written to present an individual in the best possible light." How do you reconcile that with NPOV? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Not every article is ready for prime time. This one is woefully short of biographical information as it currently sits, although there is more than enough career work showing to demonstrate the subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Guidelines for inclusion are just benchmarks, there is no one-size-fits-all universal rule that every subject of a Wikipedia article must have, say, three independent articles about them as a subject which pop up in a 15 second drive-by Google search. An executive producer of that many films is worthy of inclusion, regardless of the relative inapplicability of film guidelines to executive producers. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your instinct that an exec producer of so many films just has to be notable. But think for a moment where your instinct comes from. It probably comes from your memory and observations of countless other, more high-profile execs, who really are notable, in the sense that biographers have noted them. But notability doesn't come packaged in neat categories. The fact that many exec producers of many films are notable, doesn't transfer to the the whole group. Sure, this person has accomplished a lot, but if no reliable source has noticed it, the accomplishment is unfortunately not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. And addressing your comment about the 15-second Google search: I've had a look in Lexisnexis, a much more extensive newspaper and magazine database, and her name only appears in lists of film credits (like [1] from google news) and trivial mentions (e.g. "CineTel's Paul Hertzberg and Lisa Hansen are producing the film, with Paul and VCL's Datty Ruth as executive producers"). 160.39.212.104 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thus I nomed it for deletion because there was nothing to write a Bio about her. We are not Linkedin thus we need more than a list of accomplishments Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm confused now. The subject is clearly notable, and the article has content, context, and sources properly cited. Under what exact policy are you nominating this article for deletion? Cindamuse (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) Requires several element to write a Biography: Reliable Secondary non-trivial sourcing, Movie reviews that mention her are routine and trivial. No to mention we need sources ABOUT HER... NOT only ones that mention her. This is at best a list of films that Lisa M. Hansen has helped produce and a farce of Bioagraphy Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, to answer my question... under what deletion policy has this nomination been made? Cindamuse (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's not forget notability. On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. NPOV is addressed by providing factual information, supported by secondary and third-party sources. Content that will enhance this article include information about her early life, date of birth, place where she grew up, information on her family, educational background, things of that nature. Cindamuse (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without independent coverage (i.e. the "secondary and third-party sources" which you agree are necessary) how is a biographical article possible to write? It's not a coincidence that the possibility of writing a neutral article from multiple independent sources is how wikipedia defines notability. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to WP:SOURCES, self-published sources are considered reliable with regards to themselves. Self-published information is only forbidden in the case when you're editing an article about a third-party. For example, on this article, it is fine to use her website to say that she graduated from X school, but you may not say in the article on X school that she graduated there using her website as the source. —CodeHydro 19:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But for a subject that is only documented in self-published sources or in interviews (i.e. if no third party sources exist), you run up against the spirit if not the letter of npov, because all the wikipedia article can ever contain are things that the subject has said about him/herself. The result is effectively an autobiography. Of course this is a moot point here, where no self-published sources or interviews seem to exist. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. —CodeHydro 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Directory entries are not reliable sources and only confer evidence of existence.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this nomination is inappropriate considering the large body of notable work she has played a major role in producing (just take a look at the 30 or so wikipedia articles that contain the name "Lisa Hansen" or "Lisa M. Hansen"). Clearly an unambiguously worth of inclusion as per WP:AUTHOR. —CodeHydro 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added even more sources, such as this independent bio (note how it says she is a guest), as well as a couple of interviews here (video) and here. There are certainly more sources, but I've only skimmed through a the first few results on Google. The main difficulty in finding interviews in bios is not so much because they don't exist, but because the results are buried in mountains of pages noting her as a producer for the over 70 films she has led. —CodeHydro 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The independent Bio its little more than a press releaseWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put text of bio into Google. It is the only result, therefore it is not a press release, or at least not one mass distributed over the web. —CodeHydro 23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use press Release for lack of a better word as it sole point is to advertise this woman attandence Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 1/ That's no "independent bio." She was a speaker at the event. Typically in those situations the event organizers will ask the speaker in advance to prepare a few statements of introduction. Whether that's what happened there or not, we still don't know the source of that information--and thus it is totally unreliable. It is, in fact, clear promotional hagiography--"one of the most prolific and successful...transformed the company...worked on projects with Quentin Tarantino[subtle...very subtle]". Notice that it induced an editor to copy the hagiographic language into the article ("Cinetel Films, among the largest independent film studios...one of the most prolific and successful Producers in Los Angeles"). Bad sources lead to bad articles. The problem is that with no independent sources to correct the hagiography, the article is unfixable. 2/ The youtube video is not third-party (but I suppose is usable as a source in an article on the film if other, independent sources exist on it). 3/ The recap of the panel discussion is not even about her. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether or not she herself is the original source. You are misinterpreting the independence requirement. If we used your argument then Wikipedia would lose 95% of its sources with regards to biographical information. For example, pretty much every journalist reporting on any famous person generally go with whatever they gain from that famous person from an interview, or base their reports on somebody else's interview, which can inevitably be traced back to the original person. The main thing is that somebody who is independent of her (as in not owned by her) considered her important enough to make a bio of her. —CodeHydro 03:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No journalist worth his salt would uncritically reprint the assessment (probably Hansen's own self-assessment) that she is "one of the most prolific and successful Producers in Los Angeles." A good journalist writing a profile of her would interview not only her but her colleagues and co-professionals, no? Maybe even certain rivals. So, yes, independence is meaningful. Unfortunately, the hagiography we're discussing involved no journalist. It's unsigned, unreliable, bereft of facts, and replete with puffery. And autobiographical sources beget autobiographical articles. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the said the source was ideal and I agree with you that regard, but it'll have to do for now until better sources are found. Either way, it is more than enough to confirm independent notability to satisfy inclusion requirements, especially when considering that the sheer volume of her notable work arguably satisfies inclusion whether or not such a bio existed. Deletion simply is not appropriate here. If you feel that the statement is not PoV balanced, then find a critical source and add it to the article. —CodeHydro 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability policy supports deletion of articles where NPOV is impossible to attain because no independent sources exist. That seems to be the case here. Why do you persist on describing the panel discussion "bio" as independent when it clearly is not? Her involvement with many films is not in dispute, but notability doesn't transfer like that. Otherwise the gaffer would be notable too. 128.59.179.252 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem may be solved by renaming the article. CineTelFilms is an important independent film producer. It has also worked with major companies. I believe CineTelfilms is notable enough to warrant an article (like for example Miramax and Village Roadshow). Only a small amount of space has to be reserved for Lisa M. Hansen and Paul Herzberg, as they are very hard to source. The fact that the company has made films with actors like Fran Drescher, Dolph Lundgren and Kiefer Sutherland should amount to something. Their total body of work is certainly notable for a small independent company. An article on CinTelFilms and their founders should be in Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - It seems incredible based on the number of credits, but searching for her name with or without the middle initial and film or her name and producer in google news archives comes up with nothing but credits/trivial coverage, not the kind of substantial coverage one needs to pass WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. No indication other RSs unaffiliated with the subject have material coverage. The FanExpoCanada promotional piece does not even come close. I'd change my !vote if anybody can come up with a couple of newspaper profiles or something like that. Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Producing that many notable films, makes you a notable producer. Dream Focus 04:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now added three sources [2] [3] [4] which have allowed me to greatly expand the article with a new "Life" section. The third source is a bit iffy, but it does seem independent from them. Either way, taking into account the first two sources (and other older sources), independent notability should now be firmly established. —CodeHydro 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source #1--the link doesn't work and I don't see any corresponding source in the article. Help? Source #2 is unattributed and unreliable. The LA Times publishes wedding and death announcements too, with information and prose submitted directly by interested parties. This is a business announcement. Source #3--again, just because something may be published by someone independent, doesn't mean the actual source is independent. Here, the material is unattributed and therefore unreliable. It's the same kind of puffery we've already seen and discussed here--not just "a bit iffy." 160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the first link, use your browser's ctrl+f find function and look for "hansen"--you'll find the name mentioned 10 times. You'll find rather long passages dealing with both. An alternate link for the first source is [5]. The second source is fine since it is supported by other sources. —CodeHydro 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the article here[6]. It's really about Cinetel, so it supports Novaseminary's idea below. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dream Focus's cogent rationale which is firmly grounded in wikipedia policy. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policies do you think have been violated here? Did you mean guidelines? I think we meet WP:Entertainer quite well. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I'd say producer is a significant role in the production. Dream Focus 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ENT applies to "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities." Her acting certainly does not meet WP:ENT. It is a stretch to say that producing is a "role" as this guideline means it. The guideline seems to be referring to on-air, on-stage, what have you, "roles". I think she would have to meet WP:BIO's general requirements / WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since a new article on the company has been created, I am ok with merging/redirecting this article to CineTel Films. Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this article's talk page. Most people seem against such merging. —CodeHydro 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I see on the talk page is 1/ an inconclusive discussion between you and JHvW and 2/ a request from the article's creator to leave the article alone because he says Hansen deserves recognition as a female in a male-dominated business. Of course, it's not up to wikipedia to recognize achievement until independent sources have done so first. So as far as we know there is one relatively in-depth source on Cinetel (focusing, by the way, more on Hertzberg than Hansen). This is a good start for an article on Cinetel. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge into an article about CineTelFilms. The sourcing here is plainly insufficient for a biography, so presenting information about Hansen in an article about CineTelFilms seems to be the most sensible course of action. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combination Lock (game show)

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

Unsold pilot. Only sources are primary or press releases. No reliable sources, plenty of OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has an extensive amount of original research and there are also no reliable sources to cover this article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kitchen Show

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

Fails notability for fiction JeremyMcClean (Talk) 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The K

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) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nackman

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

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for this singer songwriter. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was closed as keep, but reading through the keep !votes I can't see anything grounded in guidelines, just "seems notable enough" etc Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There was a solid KEEP in the 1st nomination and this should not be nominated again! Don't waste out time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Touring lacks coverage. Albums self released. Nackman lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. It may have met wp:music in 2006 but things have changed since then. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I can't find any substantial independent coverage of this artist. Just show schedules, and a passing reference in this New York Times article. If some reliable references can be found I will reconsider. Pburka (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find significant coverage of this person by independent reliable sources. All we have right now are database entries, which are enough to verify existence but not establish notability, and a passing mention in the NYT, which is not significant coverage.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methal Pertiwi

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

Proposed for deletion as non-notable comic book but already deleted once so in the past (at Methal pertiwi) so brought here. Delete for lack of coverage. Tikiwont (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable comic series. Sources aren't reliable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Kanye West song)

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

Fails all parts of WP:NSONGS Red Flag on the Right Side 20:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS. There is no suficient material for a standalone article and it is not a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song; no charting. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NSONGS. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Bolling Ferrel

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

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability. I may be wrong, and if sources come up, I'll be happy to withdraw nom, but as it stands, I go with deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristes Tigres

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

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability. I may be wrong, and if sources come up, I'll be happy to withdraw nom, but as it stands, I go with deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A numerical reading of this debate might lead one to a no consensus close, however, a careful reading shows no reliable sources, and a clear policy-based consensus that this article should go. Courcelles 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jason Steed (Young adult novels)

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

No particular evidence given that it meets notability guidelines. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed, endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 12, and G4'd several times since then. Most recent G4 nom declined by User:Frank. After creator moved it to his userpage, this discussion resulted in its being moved to a subpage, from where it was moved earlier today. Also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Steed and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beehold, and currently the subject of an ANI thread. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My notes on this article and the G4 decline:

I declined the G4 because there were 6 new references added in 2010, and a total of 12 new refs since the previous deletion of the article. That indicated to me that the content was not substantially the same. (I am making no representation as to suitability of the article for inclusion.)
Most recent deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed (2nd nomination)
Link to article content right before it was deleted here (sorry, admins only).

I know it's tedious but it seems the best answer is to have an actual deletion discussion here to determine if it meets criteria for inclusion. The claim is that things have changed since the previous deletion discussion; I think perhaps that's true but a discussion here can determine consensus. Frank | talk 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, you can see what's in the previous article: WHAT HAS CHANGED?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve new references. Nevertheless, I don't think it meets criteria for inclusion in the project. My G4 decline was process-based; I believe the end result will be the same, with one improvement: a much more recent deletion discussion. Tedious but ultimately useful. Frank | talk 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are full of puff and directory listings and I am not convinced that it meets notability guidelines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it this book seems to be full of Huff & Puff, newspapers in two country's, awards, Authors reviews, and countless reviews on every website seem to appear daily, yet if we look at anything close such as Fledgling (novel) this book survives for 5 years here without a single source. Along with TENS of THOUSANDS of other titles.

Fledgling (novel) was reviewed on All Things Considered -- I don't think its notability is in question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all of the "sources" appear to fail WP:RS, and I wasn't immediately able to find sufficient reliable sourcing that would establish the notability of the "series" of book(s). I also find the repeated recreation to be dubious and disruptive. jæs (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having gone to the trouble to point out why it doesn't meet G4 criteria, I've reviewed the sources provided in the article and looked for evidence of notability (particularly GNews hits) and haven't found any. The author has an article; at most this should redirect to Mark A. Cooper (author). Frank | talk 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author's article has also been put up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Cooper (author). Perhaps these two AfDs should be merged? -- The Anome (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merging -- author could establish notability without establishing notability of this particular book series. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This new article is NOT identical content. One can cleary see that it has another recent center spread newspaper articles. The book now has two awards, news paper articles in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has reviews from everyboook reviewer website and a review from a prominant author Joe Craig. If I scan 20 -30 books listed on Wikipedia I can't see any with this much attention, news stories. The book now has a major publisher and according to the publishers website it's scheduled for 7th Sept 2010 launch. Given the recent news articles and reviews I think it should be a strong keep. If we delete it, we must look why this is singled out compared to other books listed in the very same genre. I think the first rejection 14 months ago was correct. But the book has more than proved it self worthy among its peers since. Do we simply ignore this forever due to a posting 14 months ago. If we ignore the hundreds of reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and various websites submitted by independant people, can we ignore Joe Craigs review, and more newspaper articles. Has Wikipedia turned into a 'boys club' were one or two members can single out a topic? A simple google search (although not making it notable) will give over 92,000 results.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I can head over to Amazon etc and post reviews on any number of books without reading them, it demonstrates nothing. We have various standards such as reliable sources to deal with such issues. The review by Joe Craig is referenced to the author of this books website and reads little more than promotional puff, it amounts to three sentences hardly an indepth review - the various standards require non-trivial coverage, three sentences is trivial. As for the other books you've seen with poor coverage see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The newspaper latest newspaper review is a local new paper with a small box, which again reads more like press release type stuff. As for the issues of 14 months ago, you are correct they shouldn't play a part in how we view this today, however the majority of the above delete comments make no reference to the previous state, instead they say that they have evaluated the sources and searched out new ones before reaching their conclusions. You say the book has "more than proved it self worthy among its peers since". How? By getting a few paragraphs in a local paper and another author writing three sentences on it? Or by having any amount of essentially anonymous reviewers posting on the internet? -(talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To post a review on amazon you must open an account and make a purchase with a credit card. But I don't think thoses reviews are being claimed as facts. Please stick to the facts, the Sunderland Echo is not a local paper, an authors review is exactly what it is, a review by a peer. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC))82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't claimed amazon's reviews are being used to support facts, I'm replying to your assertion that reviews on various websites by effectively anonymous authors is important - it isn't. No notability standard includes the number of user submitted reviews as a factor, please stick to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Sunderland Echo is a local newspaper - it is not available nationally, even if it is available over a fairly large area. The Wikipedia article on it claims a declining ~~readership~~circulation with the last being 44198 in 2008, given the UK where it is published has a population of approximately 60million, it reaches 0.07% of the nation. It's a local paper. The other authors review is referenced to a non-neutral source - the author of this book - the GNG requires independance. Regardless it still amounts to three sentences of puff - it is trivial coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked amazon and it does require a purchase (it presents the link to add a review which is what I had seen) but only objects after following the link. This however doesn't make a difference to number of user submitted reviews not being a notability factor in any standard. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources/info for a keep, (not to mention a nomination for a Indy book award!). Some of the sources definitely need to be cleaned up/removed though (just aren't reliable enough), Sadads (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting confused? The 'indieaward' seems a "you pay us to enter" type of awards and not notable in any way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has the two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews to keep a book article - see Kirkus Reviews discussion below and [7], as well as three newspaper articles in England and America, radio coverage - and much more. Interesting that some editors here think that "pay as you enter" types of award are "not notable in any way." Perhaps Wikipedia should delete its article on the Pulitzer Prize, which requires a $50 entry fee. In addition, perhaps the hundreds of articles which reference the Sunderland Echo should also be deleted, as it is "only a local newspaper." (And former front page article on Wikipedia). Also, why is Cameron Scott intent on editing out all mention of awards in the article? Could it be they WANT the article to appear to be non-notable to potential readers?--Itshayfevertime (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between referencing for facts (where a local newspaper can be fact checked) and referencing to establish notability. If there are many articles on wikipedia which rely on the latter with a local paper then yes, they quite possibly could be nominated for deletion. The article on the Sunderland Echo appeared on the front page of wikipedia is largely irrelevant, it isn't an endorsement of it nor is it an indication of importance in any particular case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete. Whoa. Okay, so notability is being established here by a) not winning an Indie Book Award, b) a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is probably NN himself, and c) what else? The other references disqualify themselves one by one per WP:RS. A single mention in a local newspaper does not a significant contribution to the literary scene make! On these grounds, categoric, definitive fail of WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Unless this becomes a bestseller or starts seeing critical attention from the world at large, this article needs to go. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could Chromancer possibly explain this remark, as I don 't understand it. "a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is probably NN himself" Does this mean Chromancer believes Jason Steed author Mark Cooper is Joe Craig, or that Joe Craig wrote Jason Steed, or that the quote is made up - or what? I am genuinely puzzled! --Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean none of those things. The blurb Joe Craig wrote about Mark Cooper's book cannot be used to establish significant secondary coverage, since it is self-published (i.e. Joe Craig's comment is published on Mark Cooper's website) and by someone whose opinion does not carry significant weight. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't really agree that the opinion of an award-winning author like Joe Craig "doesn't carry weight," but I really appreciate you helping to clear things up for me.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Does the Book of the year award by fictionreviewer not count? The book seems to be re-published tomorrow by a major publisher. Since when has a book got to be a 'best seller' to be mentioned on wikipedia? There are over 32,000 books listed here? I doubt a small fraction of those have won awards or been written about so much. I checked it out on google books, the book pays tribute to Raymond Steed a link from that wikipedia page states that money from the first edition paid for the memorial. What has this book not got that the thousands of others here have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.18.233 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I just did more research on the and found on Kirkus Reviews a company that has a reputaion of thrashing some books have given the novel a 5 star rating. This is the companies highest rating, Twilight was given 3.5. http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/childrens-books/mark-cooper/fledgling-2/ I think there must be more to the reason why some are wanting this book banned!— 173.65.18.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first AFD addresses the fictionreviewer award with stuff like "See my comments above about fictionreviewer.com: they accept e-mail submissions and have horrible errors in their use of English on their contact page. The two combined, I feel, leaves them with zero credibility as a reliable source for book reviews.". Being published by a major publisher isn't one of the inclusion criteria. Where is your source for the book being a "best seller"? which best seller list did it appear on? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, and besides quality is a factor, not quantity. So what about the first edition paying for a memorial, can people buy entries on wikipedia by making chartiable donations now? Of course not, none of our guidelines include any such criteria for inclusion. I'll have to look closer at kirkusreviews, a brief glance seems positive. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see if any of them could confirm that the Kirkus Review helped establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is a RS, and is used as such on many articles here; It is a selective professionally edited review service very widely used by librarians. The Kirkus review concludes with "Well constructed, full of adolescent wish-fulfillment and almost believable, this is an undemanding page-turner in the spirit of Alex Rider and Co. that will appeal to parents as well as kids. Let the sequels begin." However, for books we've normally required two RS reviews. Problem is, I do not see another one, but I will check further. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These reviews don't show notability. Please come back with reviews from literary journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chromancer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Joe Craig blurb is a blurb, not a review. A review must be published. Authors, even prominent ones, say nice things about tother authors books for advertising, jacket copy, web pages, and Amazon--but they do not normally have any reliability at all. Only what they publish in an edited source is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OMG. I just googled it. This book is huge. EVERY book site around the world has huge reviews on it. http://eatingyabooks.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-middle-mondayreview-of-fledgling.html ARE WE NOT AN INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA? Why do we then ignore websites for clarification and look for resources such as old fashion newspapers and when we see them , we scoff them. I was amazed by the reviews this book has got from all these sites, that is an astonishment achievement by itself. As for the author paying for the memorial, "Good for him" to many of us forget our fallen heros' I say a very strong keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.112.162 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 12.230.112.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Frank | talk 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So his paying for the memorial we should be impressed with and reward with an article? ARE WE NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... We look for reliable sources coering the subject, not random anonymous people on the internet. Blogs like the one you've pointed to I can easily setup and write whatever I want, doesn't mean I know anything about the subject, so part of being an encyclopedia is actually filtering out such stuff, if we were just here to grab anything else from the web we may as well respoing wikipedia.org to google.com --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sadads. ~~Charles Matthews~~ (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the above comment wasn't made by User:Charles Matthews but rather 12.170.214.41. MER-C 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realise the indy award is not indy as in "The Independent" newspaper? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - It is now at No 6 in the Martial Arts kids books list on Amazon.com - and rising rapidly. [[8]] You can't argue with that type of popularity!--Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be useful...if only we were discussing popularity. However, we are actually discussing notability, a different thing. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless real. Frank | talk 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be an argument if a) it were relevant to notability and b) it were true; as of only a few moments ago it was number 12 and falling. It appears that a place on Amazon's bestseller list is extremely transient. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an hourly updated list it's currently at no 12, guess it's peaked and past it's prime? Not that such a narrow sample is that indicative. At 1 is The Karate Mouse (Geronimo Stilton, No. 40), we don't have an article on that either. Widening it to childrens books it doesn't make the top 100. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, now it slipped to #16 [and later #19], it's falling like a rock! Amazon's sales rank for this is 182,243, so an "It's popular on Amazon" claim isn't going to fly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...aaand it currently sits at #32. Apparently since these are updated hourly and the topic is so narrow, a single purchase is enough to make something briefly rise in the chart, afterward it settled back down again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Karate Mouse is still no 1 though, still no article for that literary masterpiece. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chromancer. Also, a closer look at the edit histories of this article's main contributor (along with Oliver0071) shows a pattern of edits almost entirely promoting Mark Cooper and/or his books. We may be seeing a long-term conflict of interest or use of sockpuppets here. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - I have already said in this debate, two or three times now I believe, that I used to be Beehold. However, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Oliver0071, although you are not the only one to owe him an apology now.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth a sock report - the IP addresses as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have already been done, but if not, feel free. At least then someone might feel the need to apologise to Oliver0071 - as, after just looking at his contributions, he seems to have been scared off from editing at all.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - aggressive and shameless spamming history, very strong indications of sockpuppeting and the like; more to the point, still no notability established. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - the book has the "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" to keep a book article on Wikipedia - see Kirkus Reviews discussion above and [9]. If there is spamming/sockpuppetry on this page, then it is NOTHING to do with me. I am the original author of this article and I know that, although you are allowed to have sockpuppets, it is against Wikipedia rules to use them to try and influence voting. So... feel free to check me out - or stop making false allegations.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is deleted, it should be salted given the aggressive attempts to ensure that wikipedia is used to advertise this book. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is an orchestrated campaign against this article. It meets the requirements of Wikpedia to stay on the site (two RS reviews)- yet there are editors such as Cameron who are determined to see it trashed. Hmmmm - I smell something rotten in the state of Wikipedia.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a standard which says 2 RS reviews. The standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Multiple has a debatable meaning where the number is usually a factor of the perceived quality of the sources. (Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing if the sources meet the standard in the first place here, just a note that a hard 2 has never been the criteria). The idea that through continual recreation under different titles by SPAs is pretty scary to me, I smell something rotten and not eminating from wikipedias standards. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's been recreated under about 4 different titles now, posted on a similar number of userpages I doubt salting any given title will help. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 0.01% of my edits (@10,000 edits) are about this article, clearly I am out to get it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - and another 10 percent are on my talk page, trying to get me to retailiate in some way. (Well, you are the major contributor anyway...) Tough - I know your game. --Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Itshayfevertime (talk · contribs) has opened an AN/I discussion regarding this AFD here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show notability. No prejudice against Frank, I'd have probably declined a G4 as well. The nearest these books come to notability is the article in The Cornish and Devon Post, but tellingly that article predicts a movie to be made in the summer of next year (2010) that clearly never happened. -- Atama頭 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Cornish & Devon Post article, The Bradenton Times article and The Sunderland Echo article, so now we have unearthed 'THREE newspaper articles'. "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" a review or Blurb from award winning author Joe Craig. Surley the 'no-sayers' and those who started the 'ihatejasonsteed' wikipedia page should just own up and admit they have tried to sabotage a page that has the merits. I am 15 and would never come up with anything so dumb as this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ihatejasonsteed. This is getting childish. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reply - the Brandenton Times article wasn't even about the books, it was a biographical article on Cooper. The Steed books aren't even mentioned until nearly the end. It's good evidence for the notability of Cooper (whose article isn't up for deletion right now) but not the Jason Steed books. The article supposedly from the Sunderland Echo is not listed in their archives, so I can't tell if it was a brief blurb or a press release (if it was an actual article I would have thought they'd have it on their site). Why would you bring up some sockpuppet named "Ihatejasonsteed"; are you trying to accuse those arguing for deletion here of being sockpuppets? -- Atama頭 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Atama I am not saying anything like that, I know everyone means well and wants what's best for Wikipedia, I make many contributions on YA books and I set up the Mark A. Cooper page. My favorite author Anthony Horowitz is already open and all of his books have their own page. I am still shocked that if they can, how come Mr Cooper's book can't? I just mention the user page I did as it seems that someone is trying to stir things up, why else would they dream of such a name when this debate was going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't, that account was created and blocked a week ago (and the person who blocked that sockpuppet just happens to be the same person who created this discussion to have the article deleted). -- Atama頭 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Sunderland Echo story. It wasn't on their website - I don't know why - but here is the PDF copy they agreed to upload to Wikipedia. [10] It was part of a feature on YA books, with a special emphasise on Robert Muchamore and Mark Cooper.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. I will happily restore for transwiki at the request of any sysop on either of Memory Alpha or Beta. Courcelles 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2201-TMP)

– (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fan list-cruft, written from the perspective of an in-universe timeline. Works better at Memory Alpha than a proper encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Memory Beta. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Memory Alpha as suggested at in the nom. Not encyclopedic. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ye Gods - Delete from Wikipedia, and merge to MA/MB in the unlikely event the material isn't otherwise covered there. This is entirely in-universe rehash of plot summary with no anchoring in real-world treatment/perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Transwiki to Memory Alpha, but I suspect they already have content similar to this. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Royal

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

Auto Biography, no RS for Biography Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found at Google News or Google Books (lots of hits for OTHER people but not for him). Prizes claimed are not major of significant. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Ramadi

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

A five-year-old flash-in-the-pan spoof of a "Saturday Night Live" skit -- one of an endless number of spoofs that turned up. Years later, the notability of this spoof has disappeared and its relevance is nonexistent. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Decent coverage CTJF83 chat 18:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really -- the most recent press citation was from 2007. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the time frame makes a difference. CTJF83 chat 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're correct, it does not. The articles in your search show significant coverage in reliable sources that push the topic at the GNG. Also note the topic is also found covered through Google Books[11] and is written of in Google Scholar,[12] showing the tpic as having escaped having only press coverage . Guideline does not demand that coverage be ongoing to the present. See: WP:NTEMP. Article needs to be sourced though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The Google Scholar results show that this is more than just a flash-in-the-pan news item, and passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own comments above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Schmidt

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

No RS found, no G-New, mentioned once in passing on google books Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Delete I also could not find any reliable sources. However, because Doug/Douglas Schmidt is a very common name, it appears frequently in news and scholarly sources, making it hard to exhaustively search through this material. It's possible that we're missing sources. But I suppose the burden is on people arguing to keep to provide sources, if there are any? Cazort (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan McCulloch

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

Sources are skim to none, verified He wrote for torchwood but nothing for a BIO Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cautious delete, I don't see and can't find any reliable sources to establish this guy's notability either, but there are many people with the same name, obscuring the search for sources. Cazort (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Added new sources and material to article, Dan McCullogh was nominated for a BAFTA, a British Academy Award, for Best Short Film in 2007, he's also the producer of the hit independent horror film Tony (film), may be enough for notability.98.151.53.27 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm changing my recommendation to weak keep; it would be nicer to have some sourceable biographical information. Cazort (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New material added to article helps with notability.12.196.37.227 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slim on notability. This appears to be the guy. If we keep this, it's on the assumption that McCulloch will do more of interest in the future—at this time, there is not enough for a useful encyclopedia article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Bueller

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

Appears to fail WP:N. Second reference is a blog, which knocks it out of "multiple independent sources". SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. I also want to point out that the coverage in both sources is brief. I also found a reliable source using the same term "Project Bueller" to refer to a completely different project: [13]. All this points me to recommend to Delete. Cazort (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are only cursory mentions and limited to blog-type postings. I would consider New York Magazine a WP:RS, but not necessarily its online blog, especially when there is no other significant coverage. Also, WP:NOTNEWS, especially for events that fell through... maybe a reverse crystal ball? :P --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a float/event in a parade is not notable, and lack of mainstream and notable sources confirm that. First Light (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potential future event which would make a nice little legacy-type aside paragraph to Ferris Bueller's Day Off if it ever happens. Delete with a smile. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Simon

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

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Keep Extensive NY Times Obit: [14]. Other sources: [15], [16], [17] Sources make bold statements, establishing notability. Biographical information for a full article is readily available with little effort. In the future please check for sources before nominating. Cazort (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources given by Cazort are more than sufficient to establish notability. I've added some citatations to the obituary to the article. The article didn't previously mention that he was given a Coty Award. Hut 8.5 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Cazort. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryos

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

Software article that does not explain its importance, origins, use, or provide any references. Drdisque (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Delete I could find no sources. This is either a joke/prank, or something entirely non-notable. It doesn't even seem to have a homepage. Cazort (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; this probably should have been nominated for speedy. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 18:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did mark it for speedy deletion, but apparently "A7 does not apply to software" according to the Admin who rejected it. -Drdisque (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he's right, though I've little idea why. Guess you could have prod'ed it, but it'll get done now. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosball

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

Non-notable sport. This is almost a case of WP:NFT. Pichpich (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and also unreferenced. Poor search as well and one of creator's edit summary doesn't bode well for WP:GNG along with the article itself.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources. Cazort (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely falls into WP:MADEUP. WP:RS don't exist. - Pmedema (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it reaches the mainstream and gets notable coverage. First Light (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, yes, notable, no. If you want to promote the idea, do it in a series of videos on YouTube (I can envision how this works from the prose -- basically, everyone but the server is trying to grab a ball bouncing off the walls of a racquetball court, server gets a point if the ball hits the floor a second time). I have a feeling that the piece of equipment used, called a "reflex ball" or a "reaction ball", depending on manufacturer, might be notable enough for its own article, with plenty of sources to draw upon. As for the game, notability first, Wikipedia article second, and not the other way around. Mandsford 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced and unsourceable, made up in one day. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystique Summers Madison

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

Delete - non-notable reality show contestant. Appeared in three episodes of RuPaul's Drag Race Season 2. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:BLP1E. PROD removed by anon IP with, of course, no explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some coverage in sources like [18], but the coverage is brief and in passing, not enough to establish notability. Cazort (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - While a contestant on the shoe, Summers wasn't notable with the exception of being the only plus-sized contestant that season. If article's creator or editor(s) can show other examples of Summers's notability pre and post-RuPaul's Drag Race, than it should be deleted. I feel that we should give writers the benefit of the doubt when trying to keep the article.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete trying to keep an article because the subject is fat has to be one of the top 10 most absurd things I've heard on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SpaceX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon XX

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

This article (and its sister article Falcon X) were added to Wikipedia in the immediate aftermath of a space propulsion conference where a SpaceX employee gave a powerpoint presentation with various conceptual ideas for future heavy-launch system configuration, based on a conceptual new engine. Internet buzz and formal media, including the mainstream space media, picked up the story and ran with it. Per the Talk page, the CEO of SpaceX quickly emphasized that "the SpaceX heavy lift slides shown at the recent propulsion conference are just rough concepts and not part of any grand long term plan." Even Aviation Week published a story with the claims corrected: Musk Clarifies SpaceX Position on Exploration showing that Musk and SpaceX currently have no formal plans for either a Falcon X or Falcon XX, and that both rockets are mere concepts.

I don't believe Wikipedia should have an article on what is now a purely speculative future heavy-lift rocket. Perhaps a section within the SpaceX main article is more appropriate. N2e (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case a Merge is more appropriate. I'm not even sure discussion is necessary; just merge, and discuss if people later object. Some information on this theoretical rocket is verifiable but I agree about your comments regarding notability. A forward from this topic would be helpful in case someone typed the topic into the search box or URL bar, and wouldn't hurt anything because it is a legitimate, verifiable topic, even though notable enough to have its own article. Cazort (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think Merge into the main SpaceX article would be appropriate. Falcon X and Falcon XX show ways which the Falcon rocket line could evolve but it is by no means a done deal that it will happen. Still, there is enough information to make a nice section in the company article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all content can be merged into "Future plans" or some suitably named new section at SpaceX. Article names remain legitimate as search terms, and should redirect to the appropriate section of SpaceX.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, while I believe a Delete would be an acceptable outcome, for the reasons articulated above, I would also have no problem supporting a Merge of the well-sourced portion of the info in this article into the SpaceX article, especially if that assists in the development of a valid consensus on the matter. N2e (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Guerra

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

This is probably a speedy deletion candidate, but there is an assertion of notability, albeit weak. The "5th most subscribed Brazilian user of all time on YouTube" and the "8th most-viewed Brazilian partners of all time" are not substantial enough to meet the notability guidelines, and he doesn't meet the musician guidelines at all. The three references are a pair of YouTube lists and a link that redirects to the guitar maker's home page (and no results in the Internet Archive). Horologium (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians and Youtube popularity does not indicate notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Melos

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

Prod removed. No WP:RS to establish notability of a band or to WP:GNG meet other common critera. tedder (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I had no trouble finding sources: [19], [20], [21], [22]. The last one is an AP article on MSNBC. Coverage is detailed and in multiple independent sources over a varied timespan. There are many more sources out there; my search was very brief. This clearly meets WP:GNG. In the future I recommend checking for sources before nominating an article for deletion. Cazort (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JF821 I agree. A simple Google search reveals tons of album reviews and coverage of upcoming releases. WP:GNG has surely been met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf821 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep Well known math rock band, plenty of sources, I can't see why this was even nominated. Pwrong (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burgess (illustrator)

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

Deleted, but then Contested WP:REFUND by the subject of the article. Known for Return to the Hundred Acre Wood classic WP:ONEVENT, Probably could be redirected to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood but does not deserve own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - per nom. Jeremjay 24
Speedy Keep. Known worldwide as an author and illustrator of over 40 children's books written over the past 20 years. This is far from a classic WP:ONEEVENT. When using the search tools above, search "Mark Burgess", removing the notation in parentheses. Add the term "author". You'll get several hits.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Should I go on? If you need to see more, please let me know. Cindamuse (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please. But this time please point to works about this person rather than by this person. Consider this a big {{fact}} against that "known worldwide" if it helps. Where is it recorded that this person is known? Who recorded it? Where has this knowledge been published? Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Do you have a recommendation based on policy for this particular article to either keep or delete? Or are you simply here to serve as devil's advocate? The nomination was made to delete this article based on the presumption of WP:ONEEVENT. I offered a response to counter that belief. The subject also meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, as such he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. His work has been published by major publishing houses of Penguin Books and HarperCollins. I would present that his collective body of work illustrating not only the recent revisit of Winnie the Pooh, but his adaption of Peggy Fortnum's illustrations for the 50th Anniversary Edition of A Bear Called Paddington by Michael Bond; as well as his illustrations of the classic edition of Little Toot by Hardie Gramatky, highly qualify as an enduring historical record to children's literature. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] Periodical reviews not online include Publishers Weekly, March 12, 2001, "Review of Teddy Time", p. 93; School Arts, October 2000, Ken Marantz, "Review of Dog's Night", p. 64; School Library Journal, July, 2000, Patricia Mahoney Brown, Review of Dog's Night", p. 80.
    - I'm here to get you to provide a good rationale in place of the bad one, citing sources that don't in fact document the subject at hand at all, that you are still providing. Notice that not a one of the sources that you've cited thus far documents this person to any greater extent than the longest does, which is exactly one sentence: "Illustrations are by Mark Burgess, an English writer and illustrator of many children's books.". Most give this person exactly three words. So, for the second time of asking, please cite sources that are about this person, that actually document the knowledge of this person that you claim exists but haven't yet shown to be documented. Pointing to a couple of dozen occurrences of "illustrator Mark Burgess" and an autobiographical jacket blurb does not demonstrate independent reliable source material for a biographical encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. I think I've provided more than enough information to establish notability in support of keeping this article on Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that you may better serve the AfD process by participating according to information provided at How to discuss an AfD. It just feels like you're a bystander or someone sitting in the church balcony looking down at everyone else participating, while you're just waiting for someone to screw up, so you can point fingers. This is just my personal observation of several AfDs where you have done the same thing. It may help if you actually join the process by offering a recommendation based on policy, and offering comments accordingly. Just a thought. Have a great day! Cindamuse (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's called AfD Patrol, kiddo, and it helps the process by discouraging people from thinking that the right approach is to try to out-vote policy with boldfaced words, unsupported and bad rationales, and non-sources (even two dozen of them). The recommendation based upon policy stands: You should provide a good rationale, with a sound basis in deletion and verifiability policies that supports your intention that the article be kept (as well as supporting the as yet unsupported claims about this person that you've made). Despite it being pointed out twice, now, you've not done so, and your rationale still holds no water when it comes to the correct application of policy. You've cited sources that don't discuss this person (because, of course, they are in fact discussing books, and merely mentioning this person in passing) and a book jacket blurb. If you want the article kept, you would do well to start citing more than two dozen non-sources and an autobiographical publicity blurb. It's what policy requires, and if it doesn't happen you'll find your rationale being discounted and the outcome that you oppose happening despite you. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I'm well aware of the AfD Patrol, Bubba ; ) which neither confers rights or privileges, nor absolves responsibility or expectations beyond those of all editors which recommends an appropriate guideline for participating in an AfD discussion. The intent of the patrol is to assist the process, rather than hinder it. As such, the policies and guidelines of the AfD Patrol, reminds participants to review and comply with the guidance offered at How to discuss an AfD. Again, I think it might be something you may want to consider. Lead by example. Give it a try. Cindamuse (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sources: [52], [53], those are not extensive coverage but they're solidly reliable, and they firmly establish verifiable information. This man is solidly notable through his illustrations. WP:AUTH reads "# The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And even in the "worst case scenario" that we find only sparse biographical information, keeping the page is still useful as a resource for finding his various works. Cazort (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are proposing to provide verifiability for even that much of an article, to counter problems like this one, from what sources? Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how this comment is relevant to the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you don't understand our deletion and verifiability policies and should go back and refamiliarize yourself with them. This is an AFD discussion, where policies are applied. The boldfaced words don't count; the rationales do. Our policies require that even the minimum, "worst case", skeleton article that you propound be verifiable. This is the question that you get asked and have to answer to make a case that meets policy: What sources exist even for your proposed skeleton? If you think that you don't have to show that even the minimal article that you suggest can be verifiable, then be prepared for an unpleasant surprise at discussion closure. Answer the question or fail to make a case. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changed to weak keep. Not a single source is about this author; WP:GNG is therefore not met. I believe he authored books. I believe he illustrated books. What is his historic impact? --Pgallert (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:AUTH point 3; his work has received a great deal of editorial attention, including in the NY Times, CS Monitor: [54], guardian, and other high-profile publications. That is an official wikipedia guideline and according to this, he is solidly notable. The volume of attention is substantial: [55] shows mention in 113 articles; a number of those are detailed editorial reviews of the work. And since Winnie the Pooh is largely about the illustrations, this makes it very solid the way I see things. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is the classic example of a "mentioning in passing", just like all the others. The article is not about Burgess, which would be what we're looking for. --Pgallert (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that Burgess as an individual is just mentioned in these sources--but his work is discussed in great detail. WP:AUTH makes very clear that discussion of the work is sufficient for establishing notability in a case like this. That is an official wikipedia guideline. Would you argue that point 3 is not met? Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Currently yes, I would argue that point 3 of WP:AUTH is not met, or better: That point 3 does not apply. The well-known work is Winnie-the-Pooh, an old children's series that Burgess did not illustrate. The sequel he worked on is not well known. From my point of view, that observation directs the discussion to either WP:GNG which is not shown to be met, or to other points of CREATIVE which I do not see he meets. I'll reconsider after the rescue attempt is done. --Pgallert (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of policy on two points; I think the numerous editorial reviews of the sequel, including in high-profile, globally respected publications like the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor demonstrate that point 3 is met. Also, I also want to point out that notability does not depend on the current state of the article. Notability must be argued solely based on the existence of sources--the state of the article is irrelevant. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy the "multiple independent reviews=significant work" part of the story. To me, this equality cannot be concluded from WP:AUTH point 3 which I would read as "the work must be important first, and multiply reviewed second". Books are being reviewed by the thousands, every day. Which means we now have a creative professional who (to me) is not notable per CREATIVE but is after the improvements by Codehydro notable per GNG. Change to weak keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Incase you havent already guessed Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood. Unfortunately, even those !voting for keeping the article appear unable to provide third party sources about the illustrator. Articles about the book abound and many mention the Burgess is the illustrator, but this is not adequate coverage to either establish notability or generate an adequately sourced biographical article. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AUTH point 3 is pretty clear that articles about the work establish the notability of the individual. Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirection to that page makes no sense as this person also illustrated other books such as the 1999 remake of Little Toot. —CodeHydro 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reinstatement of deleted sources: [56][57].
- That's an inaccessible library catalogue, and an article that is, as so many others in this discussion are, actually about Return to the Hundred Acre Wood rather than Mark Burgess. As before, this provides almost zero biographical information about Burgess other than the usual "illustrated by Mark Burgess". Its only other statement about Burgess, rather than about the book, is a first person personal opinion of the book reviewer ("Burgess, I am sure, knows"). Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The inaccessible library catalogue was my error as I hadn't realised it was session-linked, hence (in part) my original deletion of it. The British Library Integrated Catalogue is freely accessible without login and, although a little idiosyncratic, is useful for verifying works by British authors. However, because of the session linking it is not possible to provide direct links to entries. Marcus civis (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. I would suggest that this article be improved immediately to save its bacon, however, and have flagged it for rescue. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sufficient career achievement" doesn't overcome the problems that the biographical content cannot be verified from independent sources and the bibliographical content cannot be verified at all. If there is no verifiable bibliographical nor biographical content to be had, an empty article results. This is a deletion outcome, per policy. I've pressed for sources. In response, we've had claims that sources are irrelevant to the discussion, citations of Burgess' autobiography, and citations of lots of three-word "illustrated by Mark Burgess" non-sources. Things are not looking good. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of policy here. I think that the size and scale of an article is irrelevant if the subject meets any of the notability criterion. In particular, I believe that WP:AUTH point 3 is met, others may not agree with my interpretation of that point but that is what I believe and I have not been convinced otherwise and would thus strongly object to this deletion. Also, even if you are resting your argument on the size / scale of the article (which I don't think is a valid interpretation of policy), the article has since been expanded. One source I find questionable but even without that, it's big enough for me if I were judging on the size of the article alone. I maintain my earlier recommendation of strong keep. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article a bit and added some sources. A lot more need to be done, but it is certainly not worth deleting this article on an author and illustrator of so many books. Since it is not that old, deleting would be like WP:DEMOLISH. —CodeHydro 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the source that you've added supporting the major portion of the content that you've added is Mark Burgess' autobiography. That's not an independent source. If the world at large, independent of Mark Burgess, has not documented the life of Mark Burgess, then Wikipedia cannot have a biography of Mark Burgess. You've also failed to address the basic verifiability problem that Cazort is failing to address, above, that is exemplified by this problem. The only source that you've cited that even comes close to addressing that is Helwig2009 (which once again is actually about the book rather than about the person and only touches upon the person in passing) which merely states that Burgess "has illustrated countless classic children’s characters". That doesn't provide verifiability for even the skeleton article suggested, and doesn't provide a means for addressing the aforementioned problem. It's not really providing much in the way of concrete factual information at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a global restriction to using autobiographical sources as references. That said, there are guidelines in its use. WP:BLPSPS specifically states to never use self-published sources, "unless written or published by the subject". Autobiographies or information published by the subject of the article may be used as a source if:

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources. Cindamuse (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cindamuse. I'd also like to note that I added four sources since the comment above by Uncle G seems to imply that I only added one. The self-published source is only used to fill in the gaps and is used in a way that is entirely consistant with WP:SOURCES and the policy which Cindamuse cites above. As for Uncle G's concern that works by other Mark Burgesses are included in his list, I noticed that as well, hence why I added the disambiguation above the article. Glad it got taken care of. —CodeHydro 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And now I have doubled the list of third-party sources, phasing out most of directly self-sourced references. —CodeHydro 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one source: [58] is a blog source and I think some justification is needed in order to consider it WP:RS. But even without that source I would maintain my recommendation to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I posted this remark on Talk:Mark Burgess (illustrator) and it has been suggested to post it here as well. Mark Burgess is an important British illustrator . He certainly qualifies as being notable (or a lot of other articles on illustrators and designers will have to go). Illustration is an important part of modern culture, those who excel should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article should not be deleted. If it does not meet the other criteria of Wikipedia, than that is the issue that should be addressed. --JHvW (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significantly contributed to multiple notable works, listed in the article. Dream Focus 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even more greatly expanded, with full bibliography. Source once again re-doubled as of last comment. Also nominated this article for DYK for 5x expansion. —CodeHydro 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "DYK for 5x expansion" mean? Dream Focus 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK or WP:Did you know is a way of promoting new content on Wikipedia by featuring articles in the "Did you know" section of the Wikipedia main page for around 6 hours. Basically new articles that are less than five days old that are of a minimum length or articles that have been expanded in length by over five times within the past five days may qualify to promoted this way. It's fairly typical for a DYK article to gain thousands of views in those brief six hours on the front page when it normally may get around 30 per day. —CodeHydro 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Awakening

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

Neologism with few uses found outside of the title of a book [59] and the name of an internet forum [60]. Can't locate substantial evidence that the term is popularly used outside of these contexts, and as these contexts are proper names, they should be held to a standard of notability for which they are classified (book, forum). Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jeremjay 24 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is sub-standard. Actually the article is a work in progreess and i will work to complete and enhance it. --Nizarsh (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One specific note that the term (Islamic Awakening) is quit popular in Arabic (Read as: الصحوة الاسلامية), however, it is sometimes referenced as : Islamic Revival and possible other terms. The benifit is to document the movement in English, where i personally have'nt seen it documented. --Nizarsh (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your argument for the importance of documenting the movement in the English language wiki, but perhaps it can be included in a broader article until it meets the criteria for a content fork? Please see Islamic Movement for a list of specific to movements where some of the info might be able to be applied. In researching this further I've found that the "Islamic Awakening", as shown in the examples I listed above, is applied as a catch-all term for a variety of moderate to extreme movements beginning in the late 20th century until now. I can't find any single unified definition of the term or a context in which it is used with an explicit single meaning in English. Would you support a content merge if there was an acceptable place to move the sourced information?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I believe we could reach a catch-all term. That is actually what im trying to do. But, then we could break it down for modesty ...etc. After reaching to the unifying term, we could look at content merging. --Nizarsh (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, while I think we all appreciate the inclusion of the Arabic name and sources, I'm wondering if there is an issue with presenting the information from those sources as translations to English without scholarly sources. I'm brining this up because the native language here is English and a small minority of editors on this wiki have a firm enough grasp on Arabic to be of use in policing the article for POV and vandalism. I feel there might be issues with WP:OR or WP:NPOV because the English language editors are at a loss to check the sources for themselves. Are there any accepted English translations for your Arabic sources?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - There are several sources that provide english and other languages' translations. We could use those translations. --Nizarsh (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable source to establish notability of this term. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I could see your point. But there ara many articles in wiki that provide a term in different languages with pronounciation in each language. Why it is a challenge here? Moreover, only by tying both english and arabic names that the term becomes crystal clear to arabic and english readers, and not to confuse it with other terms. --Nizarsh (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no signs of WP:Notability or WP:V. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skritter

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

fails WP:N for startup company tagged for notability for nine months. At this point promotional only. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems like an important topic. If kept, it needs to be rewritten. Jeremjay 24 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject with sources. I found these: [61] [62] with less than a minute of searching. Sunshine4921 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Newswire reference is self-promotional (pay-to-post), so it shouldn't be given weight. Is japantoday.com a reliable source? If not, you may want to look for more evidence of notability. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Doesn't look over-promotional to me and does seem to have enough coverage. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - needs more reliable refs Peridon (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like an acceptable stub. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asite Ltd

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

Software-as-a-Service company with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds a bit non-notable to me, and should have a bit more sources, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jeremjay 24 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the original believing Asite to be notable. As recent edits to the intro emphasise, it has pioneered some software advances, notably in the area of Building Information Modelling. It was the only company of its type listed on AIM. Its first chairman (Sir John Egan) and its major shareholder, Robert Tchenguiz, are certainly notable - and, in my opinion and in the latter context - it is notable that this business has accumulated substantial losses since its establishment (I will edit the article to make these points, adding references).Paul W (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable online business, obviously promotional in tone and intent: providing web-based electronic project management, project extranet, or construction collaboration technologies...... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Train (band). Courcelles 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hotchkiss

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

Band member with no individual notability. This has been changed several times to a redirect to his band but has been eventually reverted every time by User:Bobbydove, whose edits across Wikipedia are focused on this person. Possible autobiography. Suggest delete/restore redirect. Hairhorn (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Jeremjay 24 14:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Train (band) per WP:BAND. He has no individual notability from his formal band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information to the subject's page and believe that the deletion of the individual page is unwarranted.--Bysshe (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)— Bysshe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The information you provided does not indicate individual notability from his formal band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Rivera

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

Nothing in the article establishes the notability of the subject. The sources supplied in the article link the subject to his wife and other relatives but do nothing to establish his own notability. Working in television does not automatically confer notability. SQGibbon (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jeremjay 24 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was As nominator, withdrawn AFD in favour of redirect and parallel AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Parcel Service Flight 6

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

Notability guidelines for events state that events should only be considered notable for inclusion if they "have enduring historical significance" or "have widespread (national or international) impact". Furthermore, it notes that "routine kinds of news events (...accidents...) are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". "(C)overage must be significant and not in passing"; all news sources only report the accident and do not give any further context. At present moment, I'd say WP:NOTNEWS applies here. This event is not notable. The WP:EVENT guideline adds "(i)t is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible"; therefore I would not be opposed to merging the article to United Parcel Service, but otherwise, delete. Strange Passerby (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fatal crash of a Boeing 747 freighter is likely to lead to changes in the operation of 747 aircraft in general, including passenger aircraft, and possibly to aircraft operations in general in the United Arab Emirates. The article has adequate references Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that even though there's no sources at all saying that, even though none of that has happened yet, and even though that would belong in articles about 747s and aircraft operations in the UAE, this article should be kept? Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rewrite - Seems like an important subject, but needs to be rewritten. If deleted, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jeremjay24 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like UPS Airlines Flight 6 is written? Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not news and can not report on every event, not matter how shocking or sad. If this event leads to changes in 747 operations or UAE operations then it should be reported in an article on the changes, when they have happened.Borock (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not all accidents, no matter how tragic to those involved and those close to them, are notable. Agree that if industry-wide changes are made, then that would be a topic for another article, which might mention this accident if a sufficient and well-sourced causal connection is shown. N2e (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a bigger deal then some are giving it credit for, the Boeing 747 rarely ever crashes... in fact I can't even think of the last major accident one of these had. Its a very rare event, and not at all "routine" as its worded in WP:EVENT. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to UPS Airlines Flight 6, which is at the correct title per WP:AVIMOS, is better developed, and was created first. The accident itself is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to UPS Airlines Flight 6; in its current form, this is a WP:CSD#A10 as duplicate information which does not discuss the topic in as much depth. This is purely a procedural recommendation; judgment on the validity of the target article is withheld. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to UPS Airlines Flight 6. Interestingly, Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events#2010_September_3 sent me to United Parcel Service Flight 6. Q43 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link changed. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Sunbather's Daydream

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

Author's first book, self-published on Xlibris (a self publishing house). Not notable. Let me know if there is a CSD category for this. Quartermaster (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. It is a self-published book. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:COI (evidence). Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:N. Jeremjay 24 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Books with no reliable sources found. Sunshine4921 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above. Non-notable, also lacks some reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Yousou (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N with WP:RS no reliable sources. I think we can throw a snowball at this one. Pmedema (talk)

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. Good work by Msrasnw in adding sources to meet the requirements of WP:PROF. Mandsford 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lewens

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

Obviously a bright and promising young academic, who will someday probably merit a biography here, but not just now yet. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF, specifically: #1, impact in the scholarly discipline: Web of Science lists 28 papers, cited a total of 58 times, h-index=4, highest cited paper = 31. He has written a book on Darwin, according tot he article "to wide acclaim". However, I have only been able to find one book review and the article lists an interview with the "Darwin Correspondence Project". While that website probably is a reliable source, I don't think this criterion is satisfied. #2, a highly prestigious academic award or honor: The only honor listed is a local teaching award. While this may be "prestigious" as the article claims, it is not an award on the national or international level, so this criterion is not met either. #3, an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Being a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics does not seem to satisfy this criterion. #4, The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions: No evidence of this. #5, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution: while the University of Cambridge certainly fits this, a position as senior lecturer does not meet this criterion. #6, The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post: "manager on the Department's 9 month MPhil course in History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine" does not meet this criterion. #7, The person has made substantial impact outside academia: No evidence for this. Criteria 8 (editor in chief of major journal) and 9 (meeting [WP:CREATIVE]] or WP:MUSIC) are not fulfilled either. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article more than satisfies any such criteria, Lewens has published extensively and been reviewed by many important authorities. Take a look as his biography.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on my talk page indicates that I seem to have stuck out Mr. Toad's Keep vote, which I didn't think I did. It seems he didn't use the explicit "Keep" up top here when he made his case, so I took the liberty of inserting the word now, keeping the strikeouts of its improper use below. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Seems like a conflict of interest, but the article seems notable enough to have his own article. I'd say delete, but don't lock creation. Jeremjay 24 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The books' reviews (existence, location and content) seem to me sufficient evidence of his research as having made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. A quick look at his two books listed in the article - finds they have both been subject to substantial reviews in sound journals. Have added some reviews to the article.

The Darwin book now has 3 reviews including one by Michael Ruse in Mind
The MIT book Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere also has three: a 6 page review in The American Journal of Psychology, one 12 page review and a one page review in BioScience . (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep - Academic rank and earliness of his career makes this something of an Ignore All Rules situation. Deletion will remove useful information without a corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project. The existence of the published Darwin monograph will make Lewens a subject of interest for some WP users. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a keep then.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. His book was published when the topic was very popular, i'm sure it is good, but the notability of the book does not transfer. Once he takes a named chair with a significant endownment, or does similar other notable achievement, he should be here. Now, no... he doesn't. --Buridan (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Buridan's contribution: My understanding is that our policy is that an author's work may be used to provide sufficient evidence of research as having made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. And then this can be used to establish notablity. It does transfer! Named chairs or other things are additional possible criteria but not the only ones. Passing any one criteria is enough. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment/Question: In WP:Prof#Notes and examples (at the end of the bullets in section 1) it suggests that For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.

Doing this for the two of books refered to in the article would seem to indicate that they are very widely held. I get for the US world cat entries:

US Library Count=724: Organisms and artifacts : design in nature and elsewhere Author: Tim Lewens Publisher: Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, ©2004.
US Library Count=449: Darwin Author: Tim Lewens Publisher: London ; New York : Routledge, 2007.

Am I doing this right as these would seem very large numbers? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Can someone else check the numbers for these - I have tried again on another machine from a different network and I now get figures of 643 and 400 for the two books! (Msrasnw (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's right, so keep!LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) <--This is not helping. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very large numbers for book placement, lending weight to the idea of keeping this... Carrite (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Another keep. (unsigned, posted by LarkinToad2010, presumably)~~ Knock it off, please. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolute rubbish to suggest a person has to be a 'chair' to warrant inclusion. If anything, a younger, up-and-coming author is more noteworthy as they are ones to watch. Plus Lewens has already co-supervised HPS students who are now academics in their own right e.g. [63] [64].LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academics are tricky, as things currently stand. At the one end of the spectrum are those who are automatically in — generally department chairs or the authors of multiple monographs on not-too-esoteric topics that have made some sort of public splash. At the other end of the spectrum are the generally personally-written short CV-type bios of younger faculty — which are almost always deleted once brought to AfD, it seems. Here you've got one in the grey zone — a young academic with a couple of pretty well-placed books, maybe making a big enough splash, maybe not. Honest people may differ on this one. I see it as a close call for keep based on widespread placement of his books in libraries. Others will want to see articles about the subject himself in the press or some evidence that his books have make a splash, either in the scholarly world or with the mass public at large. None of this is a slight on the subject or the article or the article's creator, it's just that the line must be drawn somewhere, which is why we're here... Carrite (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pass of WP:Prof#7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia This might be via his Membership of an Expert Group what seems to be a group contributing to a UK government ministry's work (It is on the BIS.gov website) The report - The SCIENCE AND TRUST EXPERT GROUP REPORT & ACTION PLAN - Starting a National Conversation about Good Science has Tim Lewens listed as a Member and as having helped the Group articulate its views on trust - they use and refer to "The Universal Ethical Code for Scientists and the “Crisis of Trust in Science”" by Tim Lewens & Stephen John. This seems to me indicative that his work has made a substantial impact on UK government's policy discussions. The groups page - [65]] and reports [66] and Lewens and John's used report [67](Msrasnw (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Possible pass of WP:Prof#4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Which may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. Lewens' books seem to be used as texts on many courses. A quick search finds :

University of Chicago: HIPS 29508 – Nature as Technology: A Philosophical and Historical Investigation
University of Minnesota: PHIL 4607 – Philosophy of the Biological Sciences
University of Colombia: PHILOSOPHY 3248: DARWIN

Do we need more of these to satisfy WP:Prof#4? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The answer to that is no, there is no doubt that the article must be kept and once a decision made, further multiple attempts to delete it blocked to prevent vandalism by the users concerned. Lewens is an important and growing authority in his field and more than satisfies any criteria cited above.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we do not work that way. If the article is kept, it can not be relisted at WP:CSD or WP:PROD, but it can be renominated here after a reasonable time,--6 months is usual. Even if someone should relist it improperly, the action will simply be reversed, and considered an error, not vandalism. Strong assertions here do not help keep an article--we try to deal with articles on their merits, not on the degree of support from the original contributor. But it is indeed true that meeting one part of WP:PROF is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's written two books published by a very major publisher, with multiple reviews--more have been found since this discussion started & aren ow in the article. The Univ. of Cambridge & Cambridge Univ Press is the world center for both research into Darwin;s works and publications about him,. The books are very widely held for academic monographs--which of course represents the interest in the subject as well as the stature of the author. Senior lecturer is not automatic notability, but certainly does not prevent it--many academics at this level have been kept at AfD , but not all of them. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Msrasnw for finding all those references. Even though most are behind barriers, it is clear these books have been reviewed multiple times in important journals. Also, the library holdings of these books are very high. I don't agree with the reasoning that Lewens meets WP:PROF #4 and #7, howeevr, I think now that it is clear that he meets #1, which is enough to pass WP:PROF. It would help if someone would clean the article a bit to remove some trivial stuff (like being manager on the Department's 9 month MPhil course and the teaching award: purely local and given to about a dozen people annually), which distract from Lewens accomplishments. Also, editors should refrain from inserting WP:PEACOCK phrases like "widely acclaimed", unless they can back this up with references. I would do these things myself, but the owned of the article already feels that I am vandalising all his contributions and I don't want to poor oil on the fire. Anyway, as some editors have !voted "delete", I cannot withdraw the nomination, but now change my own !vote to Keep. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the article is good, well referenced, and (marginally) meets WP:PROF. I generally feel we need better coverage of academics who are making contributions to their fields, such as this one. Danski14^(talk) 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: speedy delete, this is complete bollocks. Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Le Saux

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

Contested prod. Le Saux has not made any appearances in a fully professional league, and thus fails the notability guideline for sports and athletes. decltype (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has fully played for the Gozian team, which is an member of the Maltese FA. However its an semi-pro team. No proffessional team in Malta, just like New Zealand teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.68.33 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Cohen

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

This page has been recreated though AFC but was previously deleted at AFD under BLP1E. Since there has been no further news coverage since her death I cannot see how this article can overcome that close. I did consider a g4 but since this has been through AFC a further discussion is appropriate. BLP1E still applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was on American Idol, and was covered significantly (as references on her page show) due to her death, counts to me as 2 events. CTJF83 chat 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 News Articles from this year, after her death. CTJF83 chat 06:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all about the man who killed her. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killed her, since you said no news coverage since her death, I'm pointing out 11 instances of news since her death....perhaps the page can include her and the trial of the guy that killed her, would that be sufficient for you? CTJF83 chat 06:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again. Sub-notable individual who earned news coverage only by dying. Hairhorn (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So she meets WP:GNG....right? CTJF83 chat 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E trumps GNG every time.... and meeting GNG has never been an absolute defense against deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...did you just make that rule up? Where is the policy that says BLP1E trumps GNG. CTJF83 chat 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that's what BLP1says.... that anyone notable for one event doesn't merit an entry, it's moot whether they meet GNG or not. Hairhorn (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ctjf83. Jeremjay 24 14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline N, but for me this is beyond WP:BLP1E and there is enough coverage for a valid article Chzz ► 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage of her death resulted from her appearance on American Idol which still puts this in the ambit of WP:ONEEVENT. Had she not been on AI she wouldn't have gotten the range of obits. Counting AI as one event and her death as a second event subverts the intent of ONEEVENT. A non-notable person suddenly becomes notable upon death? No. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the fact that she died, it is the fact that she was killed in a hit-and-run incident, and that was deemed newsworthy in itself (admittedly because of her prior appearance on AI). I take your point, but personally I feel there is sufficient material in RS to support an article. However, I do appreciate that it is a matter of opinion. Chzz ► 16:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that her death would have resulted in no news coverage if she wasn't on idol. What about all those "nobodys" who were significantly covered in the media Laci Peterson, JonBenét Ramsey, etc. CTJF83 chat 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:1E it mostly talks about whether to create separate articles for a person and the event, not that one even doesn't make a person notable, otherwise my 2 above examples would be deleted too, Cohen has significant coverage to meet GNG. CTJF83 chat 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexis Cohen had a lot coverage about her in the media, before and a huge amount after her death. Lots of notable sources, ABC News, NBC, CBS, CNN, People Magazine, yes, she is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.37.227 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The "after death" coverage is about the indictment relating to the crime/accident that caused her death. That is simply routine follow-up news coverage relating to a previously reported crime. The person doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG and the untimely death and resulting indictment do not pass WP:EFFECT.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm...which of GNG does she not pass? Significant coverage Y reliable Y, Independent of the subject Y...I fail to see how it doesn't pass gng. CTJF83 chat 02:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - WP:ONEEVENT, the reliable coverage is essentially about the fact that she was an American Idol contestant, thus, she should have mention in the appropriate American Idol season article (a redirect would be acceptable), but not her own article per WP:NMUSIC as, AFAIK, she was not a finalist. The accidental death is routine news coverage of accidental deaths. The article as it stands is nothing more than a couple of lines about her and her death, and lots of puffing of the death coverage to try to make her appear more notable.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are failing to answer my question, as to how she doesn't pass GNG...plus if people read ONEEVENT I don't see anywhere, where it says someone involved in one event doesn't need a page...it discusses if both the person and the event need a page or just one or the other. CTJF83 chat 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment (full disclosure, I am the same person as the above IP:74.57.5.235, just on a different IP, I'd rather not register so just to explain this is not sockpuppetry or a separate vote). The point is that this person's 15 minutes of fame were related to some rant as a failed American Idol candidate. That is the WP:ONEEVENT, and thus a separate article is not needed as there is nothing to say about the person outside of that American Idol (season 7) (and possibly season 8 for the other failed audition). The accidental death also had some coverage but it is purely accidental. Had this accident occured 10 years from now, there would have been no wide coverage outside from routine local accident news. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person (she ranted on AI, she died in a hit-and-run). She had wide coverage for 15 minutes. So did Christina Desforges (look at the AfD for that one). It's a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep Regardless, she is notable, subject has many reliable sources from major news sources, NBC, CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, Entertainment Weekly, with this much coverage she is notable and more than worthy of her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.53.27 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject has numerous reliable sources and is notable per Ctjf83. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.53.27 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ctjf83. Forty two 07:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per the already discussed WP:GNG and other policies. Fact remains she has significant coverage for two events. My only concern is that her death isn't notable and was only in the news because she was on American Idol. That said, she does barely meet.--v/r - T P 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what about WP:NOTNEWS? Wiki is concerned about enduring notability, not temporary wide coverage. Lots of things get widely covered for 15 minutes. There is no depth here. Really, two thirds of the text is about her death, which is something otherwise unnotable. There's more references saying the exact same thing about her death than there is actual text to the article. A redirect to American Idol (season 7) and a mention there is all that is needed. All there is right now is puffery.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note my 11 News events linked above from this year? Is that lasting enough for you? Plus you don't know how long in the future the coverage will be either. CTJF83 chat 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CTJF83, sources such as CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC is hardly "puffery".98.151.53.27 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did see the 11 "news events" posted. Half are the indictment of the driver in the hit-and-run, routine follow-up coverage of crime. The other half are passing mentions relating to outbursts/rants of another failed AI auditionner that rivaled her own. Nothing of substance. Again, there's nothing to be said beyond two lines. She was a failed AI candidate who got 15 minutes of fame for a rant. She died in a hit-and-run. It wouldn't take much space on American Idol (season 7). The rest is "those two things were reported here, here, here, here, here and here". That is puffery. William Hung got a record deal and appeared outside of interviews on shows like Arrested Development. What did Alexis Cohen do outside AI?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Cohen received extensive coverage from multiple reliable sources and that makes her notable in the same way JonBenét Ramsey and Laci Peterson was notable. If she hadn't received coverage from "here, here, here, here, here and here" she wouldn't be notable. But she did and is therefore notable much like Ramsey and Peterson. 12.196.37.227 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how Laci Peterson redirects to Murder of Laci Peterson per WP:ONEEVENT and covers in length the event rather than the person. For JonBenét Ramsey, that saga was much bigger than whatever Alexis Cohen has done and the size of the article reflects it. Again, the issue is that there's nothing of substance to put here.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is plenty of reliable sources from major news outlets like CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, equals more than enough substance, how many people get that kind of coverage? She's more than notable.12.196.37.227 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Alexis Cohen had a lot coverage and is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Humplik

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

Lacks notability, unreferenced, information fuelled mostly by WP:OR and speculation over his relationship with Tom Green. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Jeremjay 24 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Marginal notability, mainly only known through Tom Green. But still, unreferenced is not a reason to delete, with a little editing and referencing I think this could turn out OK. This article has been around since 2007, and the page-view statistics justify keeping it, because it fills that gap in knowledge that readers come to Wikipedia to seek. Net benefit to Wikipedia to keep and improve IMO. -- œ ^™ 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has received some coverage but its in reference to his minor role on the Tom Green Show. Not notable enough for a dedicated article. He could be adequately covered in the show article. Selectively merge (removing the original reserch), then delete.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphan Systems

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

Normally would CSD G11, but it's repeatedly recreated, even PROD. Should be put to a decision now. mechamind 9 0 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable to me. Jeremjay 24 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page was firstly deleted by administrator Fastily because it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Fastily then restored the page to my userspace and I fixed the article according to his suggestions and recreated it. Epiphan Systems is notable as its technologies and devices are used in hospitals, on the international space station, amongst other industries. Furthermore, Epiphan Systems is one of the fastest growing companies in Ottawa, Canada. Eurovictor (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's close, but there's only one proper source, which means it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Primary criteria: A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. The other sources are variously reprints of press releases or small mentions ancilliary to the main topic which would be ok if notability was established. I can't find any further sources. Bigger digger (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two paper sources [68] This is from a bi-yearly magazine published by NASA. I also have sources from academic and scientific journals, will add them in the next few days. Eurovictor (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That NASA source mentions the company once and cannot really be construed as in-depth coverage of Epiphan Systems, it is about ultrasound scanning in space. I look forward to seeing the other sources, I hope they'll be enough! Bigger digger (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced that Epiphan Systems is an appropriate topic. However, I think that their products (e.g., VGA frame grabbers) would be. In such an article, Epiphan Systems could be mentioned. — HowardBGolden (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amity Stud

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

Removed Prod. Non notable card game. Most sources don't even mention it: those that do in a passing fassion. All refer to the parent game five card stud. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some combination of WP:NFT and WP:NOT#HOWTO appear to apply. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, WP:SNOW close, non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1937 St. Louis Cardinals season

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

Wikipedia is not an almanac. There are a lot of similar articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor; this is not a blanket nomination, but if the outcome is overwhelmingly towards deletion, a blanket nomination might follow (i.e. this is a test case, selected from the stubsensor list; there isn't any reason for this page as opposed to some other "foo season" article, but you have to start somewhere.). N Y Kevin @256, i.e. 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, needs improvement if sufficient sources are available; WP:NSPORTS, §6.2 seems to address this. Right now the article is very little more than a statbox for the season; it's hard to say, though, if sources for the '37 season are going to be available to give sufficient information. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Placeholder articles have been created for all team-seasons in baseball history. The intention is to flesh them out over time, but the process will be lengthy. There is no question that sources exist to do so. Just because it hasn't been done yet is no reason to delete the work that has been done thus far. -Dewelar (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where does it say that Wikipedia is not an almanac? Agree with the others that some of these season pages need work, especially the older ones, but it's an ongoing long-term project of WP:BASEBALL and deleting this would set a precedent of deleting them all, even the fleshed out ones. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Wknight94 ^talk 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a couple sources to the article and added some prose so those issues have been fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Quote: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." From WP:5P. Simply put, the nominator is incorrect, Wikipedia is an almanac to a degree.
And there's nothing indiscriminate here; it's an oft-incorrectly used argument. "Indiscriminate" refers to factiods such as "Shia Lebeouf's favorite food is chicken". (Not an actual researched fact, just an example of the pointless trivia that has no greater bearing at all.) A systematic, ongoing effort by a Wikiproject to write a well-researched article about each season for each MLB team is very discriminate as it's a finite set of information with established inclusion criteria.
Yes, this article is in a placeholder-ish state, but there's no deadline to get it better, and indeed, deletion would set a horrible precedent that would undermine the entire ongoing efforts of the Wikiproject. Bad idea.oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow I am somewhat surprised by this nomination, since wikipedia is part almanac as per the 5 pillars "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This information is discriminate as its specifically about the 1937 St. Louis Cardinals which are a major league team. I think this is a case of mistaken understanding of what wikipedia is. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spanneraol (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References and notability clearly shown. First Light (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very notable since it is a season of a MLB team. All seasons of a major sports team should be kept. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable and referenceable topic. The nominator should strike the incorrect and misleading bluelink claim that Wikipedia is "not an almanac," since it is, to some extent, and that has long been included in the description of what Wikipedia is. Edison (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth, I Love You

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

Non-notable song, not even a feasible redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. It was never released on any album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable unreleased song. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not even released. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Donner Party

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

Can't find RS for this article Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a biography and discography in Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography (3 albums released), a review in SPIN, an entry in the Trouser Press Record Guide, reviews in The Stranger, PopMatters, Allmusic ([69], [70]) and New York Press, an Allmusic biography, and various other mentions in relation to Coomes' later bands ([71], [72], [73], [74]).--Michig (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 1 (per the sources above) and 6 (band includes notable musician Sam Coomes. Article could, however, use a cleanup. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am old enough to recall the band, which was a one-hit wonder. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 15:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Sources provided above appear to establish notability, although they need to be added to the article. The article itself needs to be cleaned up and checked for copyvios (because it reads like one). SnottyWong ^converse 15:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No one has really even hinted at notability. Courcelles 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cask Thomson

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for music ensembles. The only non-first-party source in the article is iTunes, which is not a reliable source. I tagged the article with {{Self-published}} a few times in an attempt to inspire the main editors to start digging, only to have it removed with no actual changes made.[75][76][77] Since they couldn't provide any sources, I thought this may be a better course of action. It should also be noted that the majority of edits here were made by two IPs, 110.XX.XXX.XXX and 220.XXX.XXX.XXX, which seem to have intimate knowledge of the subject and may somehow be related. This editing behavior could be seen as a conflict of interests. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the artist's two album articles that would rely on the artist's article to exist:

Delete for the reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll find most of the editors (like myself) are related to the artist via the Hillsong network, I think we should pull some of the content out such as gear etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The only sourcing for the artist article is iTunes and a whole slew of primary sources (MySpace, Facebook, etc.). Searching also yields no WP:RS indicative of WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Regardless, no evidence of notability, as the nominator suggests; consequently, the album articles should be removed for the same reason. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say the artist is definitely notable as a vocalist for Hillsong and having worked with many artists and producers such as teh infamous Mike Hedges. He is also an act at this Years Sydney Big Exo Day and I believe he will be playing Easterfest 2011. I get where your coming from in terms of notability but I believe that the artist is in fact notable amongst many christian artists and producers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are the reliable sources for this assertion? Simply saying "it's notable" without providing any corroboration is not constructive in the discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page would need to be re-written, searching for "Cask Thomson" on google will uncover a few results, but you will notice A LOT of torrent sites, iTunes pages and of course lyrics and setlist pages for shows he did at Hillsong's auditorium in Sydney (http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/cask-thomson/2010/hillsong-powerhouse-sydney-australia-1bd4a938.html) Not saying any of this makes him notable, just saying the guy exists and if pages of the ones he works with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purified_%28rapper%29) are available then why not a page on him? I dont think the page should be taken down but I think it needs to be verifiable and perhaps written that little better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.148 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hartley

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

Delete - non-notable fictional character. Fails WP:GNG with no independent reliable sources, fails WP:PLOT as being nothing but an extended plot summary/character history. Note that the first AFD has nothing to do with this fictional character; it refers to old unrelated content. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Ugly Betty characters. Jclemens (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The character is already covered in appropriate detail. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's reply. Article is much too long and the summary at the list article is just fine. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to WP:verify notability of this specific topic. Better covered as part of a broader Ugly Betty article or list, which it already is. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Murray (artist and promoter)

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

No RS that I can find on this guy Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources altogether and seems to lack notability. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In-D

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

Could be langague barrier but I can't find any sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources I know of and I don't think it meets the WP:NM guidelines. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 03:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply because it lacks any real sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McCool

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

incedental mentions but not enough to make a biography Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Probably could have been PROD'ed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MiTYBOOK

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

No RS found Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete als article fails general notability guideline. There there is no third-party reliable source. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas A. Lee

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

I am not an Expert on Hollywood sources but all this seems to be sourced to a Blog that dont look relaible to me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Raju

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

Climbed a tower, WP:BLP1E Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BLP1E is not applicable here. He is a climber/entertainer who shows off his climbing skills regularly in a particular tourist spot. That's not a single event. Besides has got a fair bit of coverage in Indian TV channels. I have seen two separate half hour specials (in two different channels) on this guy. There is a fair bit of coverage in the national media too. So meets WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - When we have articles about topics in developing nations that receive this much English coverage, there's usually a lot more available in the native language. — C M B J 03:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Raju has attracted significant coverage for his ongoing exploits in the national and internation media. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Unlimited

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

Can't find RS fail WP:BAND Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some previous discussion around the need for reliable 3rd party references on Talk:Swing Unlimited. Sadly, neither the local references in the article nor evidence from a couple of searches (better as "Swing Unlimited Big Band", as there are groups of similar names in the USA) seem to establish notability so Delete. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, this is a completely separate group, correct? Silver seren^C 17:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this is a completely separate group, based in the US. There is no doubt that this article needs work as well as better referencing. The band has been placed under the Umbrella of The SUBB Group, a group of bands with the sole aim of improving the availability of Jazz in and around the community in the Bournemouth are of the UK. At the moment I do not have time to work on this article, but will try to do so in the next couple of weeks. I also have very little idea of the protocols involved here.Webchem (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Sibner

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

Known for playing a character so minor that the "Ned's Declassified" article does not even mention the character Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. One role does not make her notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yehua Dennis Wei

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

Can't find sources for this person Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A google scholar search finds one publication with over 100 cites and an h-index of 15; his book is in over 500 libraries and has multiple published reviews [78] [79] [80]; he's also been quoted as an expert in the NY Times [81] and won some awards from his professional society. But this is only a week keep because there's not much in the way of sources that are actually about him (other than his cv) to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations and holdings are good enough to pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete User:David Eppstein's finding shows that this person exists and did some research. But I still can't make myself think this person is notable.—Chris!_c/t 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations are sufficient to show him as an expert in his field. The Scopus cites are compatible with GScholar, with 47 articles. And neither G Scholar nor Scopus will include most of the citations from Chinese sources. Quite apart from that, he has clearly written a notable book, as shown by the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hel van het Noorden

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

Not a notable race, despite its role in possibly qualifying for the Dutch national rowing team--that's only selection. If you look up "Hel van het Noorden" you find, of course, lots of hits--and they're all for Paris–Roubaix. I propose this be deleted, and the name given to a redirect for that race. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk)

15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC

Keep -- Notability demonstrated in various secondary sources. A 'Hel van het Noorden' google search in combination with any rowing related term does generates lots of hits. That another ,more popular, event with the same name is on the first page doesn't disqualify the rowing race as a notable race. I added a source for the 'selection criteria' claim and some references in regional and national news media. NeB27 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw you added links to articles on the KNRB website and on some rowing news site. Those hardly count as independent sources that help confer notability on the topic. So notability is not established. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Heath

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

No RS, No hits in scholar, Few books in Google books but no Book reviews or anything Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR. Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient author notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bile (band)

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

Can't find Reliable sources, pretty spammy Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Allmusic coverage was at least easy to find: a bio and several reviews ([82], [83], [84]). The name makes searches difficult but there's also a San Antonio Express-News article, and Google News hints at further coverage behind paywalls.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets point 5 of WP:BAND - "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". Several albums on Energy Rekords. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Soundtrack work alone is sufficient for notability. See Mortal Kombat (soundtrack) and Strangeland. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above Honey, Kim (14 April 2001), "When it's too much for Much", The Globe and Mail is partly about one of their videos, Jenkins, Mark (16 August 1996), "Jeering Bile; Alternating 16 Volt", The Washington Post is a long album review, Brosnan, Lisa; Spain, Eston (21 November 2002), "Bile's over-the-top style on way In the clubs", Charleston Gazette is a good sized article for an upcoming show. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sender (1998)

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

Contested prod. The only reference about this movie is IMDB, and I was unable to find more. It appears that even with Michael Madsen and Dyan Cannon as part of the cast this movie never managed to achieve any notoriety. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is being currently sold in stores where people can buy and watch it, and want to know more about it. Broad-based appeal is not the only criteria for desirable knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjennmom (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence alone does not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. You have to show that the movie meets our notability guidelines for films. If it doesn't, then anyone who wants to know more about the movie after seeing it in stores can check IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere release of a film to the public, without coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not justify an article. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snobbishness on how worthy a film may be for inclusion is unbecoming. The page/article would not have been created without someone searching for it. Wikipedia was not created as an exclusive club for only the top-rated A-list subjects.
- It's a difficult line to walk, for sure, but some requirements (and not just for films) exist out of necessity; Wikipedia isn't intended to cover everything in all of existence. If it were, you and I would have our own articles as well. If there's disagreement with the guidelines, there are avenues of discussion to try and address those concerns, like the Village Pump (which may not be the best for this sort of discussion, perhaps someone else could better give guidance on this). Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a search for the title alone returns retrieves more results for a film of the same name from the 1980's, and with the year, returns generally more results for Michael Madsen than the film itself, when torrents/downloads are ruled out. No reviews from reliable sources exist for the film. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for people to be able to know and understand there are differences. Heck, for that matter there are 3 different films with the same title on Wikipedia that were made within a 9 year span - I'm sure one of them shows up a LOT more in search results than the others and yet they each have their own space here. Like I said - you're not trying to take it down as unnecessary, but because you're film snobs.
- I believe what you're trying to do here is change the existing guidelines on the notability of films. If you want "film snobs" to be unable to declare a film unnotable solely on the grounds that this film has never been the subject of substantial reliable coverage (even the Rotten Tomatoes entry, which you inserted, states that it was unable to find any material about the movie), then the right place to propose a change of guidelines is Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). But here, the decision on whether or not to keep the article shall be based on existing guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Notability (films) to learn what to expect from us film snobs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road to F.A. Cup

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

no indication of WP:Notability. No independent sources. disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not incidation of notability. ~~It's a documentary about a non-notable sporting team.~~ Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it would appear to be a mockumentary about a made-up sporting team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it notable? noq (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be. The official website appears to suggest that a company has made it and is now attempting to shop it around for a broadcaster. I wouldn't have thought a programme which has never even been shown can be notable unless it's somehow acquired shedloads of independent converage, which I don't think this has -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Sandman888 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unbroadcast film. A cynic might look at the article history and see an attempt by its producers to use Wikipedia to promote their creation. Struway2 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable English Cup film. --Carioca (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Giant Snowman 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. The suggested outcomes were keep, delete, merge and redirect, with a split over whether the character, although revived in the 2000s, is notable enough for his own article. Mandsford 02:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batman of Zur-En-Arrh

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

Topic does not seem to be notable NotARealWord (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be properly referenced. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just don't see how a term that appeared in two comic book stories and one television episode could possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability. Keep only if criteria is met NotARealWord (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of articles about minor (or at least relatively minor) comics and cartoon characters that are in a sorrier stay than this one, but even though other stuff exists, looking purely at this article it does not meet the notability requirements of multiple instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. With respect to User:NotARealWord above, it is not properly sourced in it's present form. Brief mentions of the existence of a character in two webzine interviews do not pass significant converage requirements, and the third reference (a toy site I believe, the site was down when I linked it) again only demonstrates that this character is one of many, not that it is notable in and of itself. Find a secondary source that's primarily about this character, then find ANOTHER secondary source that is primarily about this character, and it will (barely) pass notabilty. But I'm sorry...not before then. -Markeer 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this minor character. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alternate versions of Batman. Clearly, this is fairly referenced, and while "other stuff exists" I can understand if notability is suspect for this niche character. The thematic elements of the character are that of an alternate Batman, and clear work has gone into substantiating and referencing the character, essentially in that context. -Sharp962 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge I like the merge suggestion. YLee (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman R.I.P., not to Alternate versions of Batman. (I'd say merge, but I can't see anything worth merging.) Alternate etc. is chiefly for alternate-universe stories, adaptations, and such, and is chiefly a navigation list, making it a poor merge target. This article is a conflation of two stories: the Batman #113 story, which is one among thousands of Batman stories and isn't noteworthy at all, and a more recent story, Batman R.I.P., which is articleworthy but has its own article. The "Batman Zur-En-Arrh" of Batman #113 is a one-off character, forgotten but for having its name reused. The "Batman Zur-en-arrh" of RIP is a notable...whatever-it-is, I'm not sure it can be called a character, but it's impossible to describe except in the context of the story in which it appears. (In fact, the bulk of this article seems to be given over to re-summarizing RIP.) Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I would disagree. The redirect toward RIP would appear to be a slant towards recent events; additionally, the "one-off" Batman was prominently featured in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold cartoon, which did receive favorable reviews and commentary [85], [86], [87]. Clearly, there is enough not to weight one version over another, the Alternate versions of Batman is the best neutral place to relocate this material. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - I don't understand. Redirecting it to a much-discussed, best-selling storyarc is recentism, because of routine articles about an even more recent single episode of a television show? Neither Batman #113 nor that individual episode of Brave and the Bold are terribly noteworthy, as #113 is a completely unremarkable issue and that issue of BATB is rather unremarkable (as you linked sites that review every single episode of every single ongoing episodic television show that has certain qualities or user review listings). RIP isn't more important because it's more recent; it's more important because it was written by a noteworthy writer, was widely controversial, and a best-seller in original printings and reprints.
    Consider this for importance: one of your three links mentions R.I.P. in the first paragraph. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More importance details: the Batman #113 story is one of three stories. The first introduces False Face in his only appearance, the second introduces Fatman in his only appearance. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems that there are indeed references. Even noting some in this discussion. And this seems definitely more relevant than noting the sandwich a character may have eaten for lunch. (A typical benchmark - ala User:Hiding.) - jc37 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is an article for this really necessary? It's not a regular staple of the Batman mythos or anything. Only had like 3 uses in the decades-long publication history of Batman. NotARealWord (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about this article is what Grant Morrison did with the throwaway character. Ergo, MERGE into Batman R.I.P. is the only option.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honest question: Have those individuals who have stated there are references for this article actually looked at those references? Please see my comment above that none of the three web links are to sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject. The discussion here is whether this article passes wikipedia's guidelines, not if it's "interesting" or because someone slapped three random links at the bottom of the article. A one or two sentence mention of the character in a much longer article on a broader subject is, I believe, the definition of trivial coverage per WP:SIGCOV. I don't hate this article, and I actually think merging it to either article mentioned sounds like a good idea, I'm just surprised that there's any discussion of keeping it. -Markeer 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's shitty and trivial. However, as two sentences added to the failing RIP article, it would improve that one's real-world coverage a bit.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note I would love to see a keep, however there seem a lack of support for a keep when I first made my entree, so I offered up a 'merge' as the most appropriate compromise. I have a keeper at heart, merge is merely a consolation.-Sharp962 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Google news has 7 results, all but the second one seem notable. [88] Dream Focus 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging to Batman R.I.P. would gimp the historical context of the character, however small. The character might have been given new life in the R.I.P. story arc, but is not exclusively owned by it, especially noting the recent television focus on the historical version of the character in the animated Brave and the Bold series.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Dini

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

Prod removed. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a biographical entry. Fairly common name, hints to notability in text but I could not find any sources. tedder (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have rewritten the article into decent prose if I could have found any evidence of notability. But I couldn't, either on Google or in the news archive. The best I could find was a few calendar-type announcements that he was singing somewhere. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yesterday Per WP:BLP and the comments above, this unsourced and seemingly unsourceable article shouldn't have been relisted. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Talkbiznow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Warner

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP that has external links to subject's own sites, but lacks third-party sources to establish notability. Article about same subject was previously deleted at AFD in 2008, but speedy deletion as a recreation was declined. RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Talkbiznow. It is probably the most sensible outcome at the moment. There is some coverage in the reliable media, but not enough for a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Victuallers (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After testing various combinations of the subjects name and affiliations through Google News, it's clear that the story here is Talkbiznow, not Warner; merge/redirect is the obvious choice. Deletion is not viable, as Warner is a verifiably noteworthy aspect of the topic of Talkbiznow. Skomorokh 06:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, although I nominated this as a deletion, I have no objection to a merger. --RL0919 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article centers around Talkbiznow anyway, a merge with the Talkbiznow article looks like the most reasonable thing to go for. Airplaneman ✈ 15:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Martin Warner (bishop), a notable figure of this name.Neddyseagoon - talk 16:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Warrior

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:CLUB. I took a look at all the cited sources, and they appear to all be trivial mentions or primary sources, not the "significant coverage in reliable sources" that we require for inclusion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little in the way of significant coverage either in the article or found from a search. There are several news articles that mention the organization, but I think it really needs more than this: Boston Globe, Times Daily, Dallas Observer (this is the correct URL for the piece cited in the article), Washington Times, Hernando Today. Also some book coverage here, but it hardly looks scholarly.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little in the way of primary sources. The sources they do give relate to the blog and site. The rest are dead. scope_creep (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a news archive search and these sources found [89]. But someone has to do the work to enter info into article. Any takers? I dislike the group and have seen better groups with equally good refs deleted, so don't feel I should vote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could stand to be edited, but there are sources out there. Admittedly, most of the media coverage is minor, because the group tended to appear mostly to satirize and counterprotest other, larger protests. But here is discussion of the group in a book by Matt Taibbi. Here's an article about them in the Dallas Observer. As one might expect, Fox News wrote about them too. And just this month, a Republican candidate for Congress lost a Tea Party endorsement because of his past involvement with Protest Warrior. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing seems adequate and writing is decent. I like the careful way the current status of the group is explored. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The group has sufficient coverage in the 3 reliable sources listed in the external links section, but all of the RS mentioned in the references section are dead. Consolidate the 2 sections, re-cite, and clean out the dead links. Tarc (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaz rezaei ghalechi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Elnaz Rezaei Ghalechi

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. CSD declined after a series of deletion and recreation. There's no third party and reliable source in the article and I couldn't find any reliable source during a Google search. (Most of the Persian sources of the article are texts by the subject and not on her. Farhikht (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. Footnote it or blow it up. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: per nom, I dont think the sources can pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bisaya (Borneo)

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

This was tagged for speedy as a blatant hoax by Djackalbru who wrote in the edit summary: "Most of the historical facts are not true. Mostly fiction&hearsay.NOT rec in Historical annals of Brunei&Sabah.Website "http://awangalakbetatar.synthasite.com" is dubious,created as hoax reference.No proper Brunei&Sabah historical FACTS ref." Looking at the article it does not seem like a blatant hoax and there are other articles about this ethnic group created by the same user, which may or may not be hoaxes too. Thus I list this here for more eyes and comments. No opinion. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the article is a hoax. It would be good to consult these sources:
Peranio, Roger D. (1972). "Bisaya." In Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia, edited by Frank M. LeBar. Vol. 1, Indonesia, Andaman Islands, and Madagascar, 163-166. New Haven: HRAF Press.
Punchak, Sylvester Sarnagi (1989). "Bisaya Ethnography: A Brief Report." Sarawak Museum Journal 40:37-48. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is entirely accurate. Why did you think it was a hoax. Thirty minutes on google would have dozen's of primary and seconday sources. Apart from that, the article needs shortened, it could be at WP:LENGTH or more, wikified and cleaned up. It needs trimmed, anything that can' be verified. scope_creep (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What search term did you use? "Bisaya (Borneo) -wikipedia" turns up only tonnes of mirrors. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some paragraph must be deleted cos No solid reference period..In regards of Awang Alak Betatar as a bisaya or in bisaya history its mostly fiction & hearsay. Not recorded at all in annals of Brunei, Sabah or Sarawak Historical facts.These following paragraph are not accurate ,(1)'The lost treasure', (2)'Brunei Historical Centre version',(3)'Tales from Limbang,' (4)The first king of Borneo,..etc..etc.. is manipulated and borrowed history of other ethnic tales.. eg. Brunei Malay, Kedayan.. Whats the population of Bisaya in Temburong district, puni is in Temburong.. Even some of the foods and kuihs or 'Bubu mengalai' are of bruneian malay or kedayan ethnicity. Website "http://awangalakbetatar.synthasite.com" is very very dubious!,created by an interested party to support dubious facts but its just as hoax reference. Also most reference are just furnished hastily and mostly are irrelevant to the "Awang Alak Betatar history". This issue is very closely related to the lineage of Brunei Royals history.. There is NO proper Bruneian & Sabahan Approved & documented or recorded historical Facts and Reference..Pls delete those controversial paragraph, i'm puzzled this can be quoted ".. its entirely accurate.." ?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackalbru (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be familiar with the topic. Feel free to improve the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence and notability of the subject are clear: [90][91][92][93][94][95] and loads more. If any particular content is inaccurate then the article can be edited, but there is no reason to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amvona

AfDs for this article:

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

Technology company that asserts notability via some large numbers, but fails to demonstrate any significant coverage. The references seem to be made up entirely of trivial mentions and citations, none sufficient to pass WP:ORG. Article seems quite different to the version deleted in a previous AfD, but doesn't demonstrate notability any better. ~ mazca ^talk 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references in-article are largely trivial coverage, no significant/direct coverage of the company. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Meteor Shower Trilogy

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

The topic is not notable, and has received very little if any critical review. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep but trim to just three links to relevant episodes - sort of a set index. No need to retell the same stories in different places. East of Borschov 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above seems reasonable, but I would keep a short summary for each episodes, maybe a couple sentences establishing the premise. Zazaban (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but update South Park (season 3) to indicate that these episodes are considered a trilogy. Beyond the short synopsis already present in that article, that's all that's relevant about this article anyway. JulesH (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I do not beleive the "trilogy" is significant as, say, the two parter Imaginationland, which received a special release as one long story. Mention on the episode/season pages to indicate that these are loosely connected perhaps, but this doesn't seem to have much real world significance. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single footnote or reference in this article that establishes special notoriety separate from survey articles about South Park seasons or episodes. Honestly "no footnote or reference" is usually enough to argue for the deletion of any article that comes up in AfD, although I grant in this case it's a sub-article of a larger subject. Still, no special significance has been offered or cited, and there it is. -Markeer 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUst to clarify, before nominating, I tried to google the term to add some references but I could only find blogs and various sites that lead me to suggest that this is an in-universe term, with very limited notoriety outside of hardcore fans websites. Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Length of existence does not guarantee notability, and the sources provided are insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Crusaders

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

No secondary sources found, only false positives. Only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish any notability. I can't find any in google either. Per AGF I'd leave this AfD run for a little while to give author a chance to show impartial notabilty. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not about anything notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A remarkable subject: a syndicated radio program that has been around since 1936! Online sources may not be the alpha and omega here. But here are a few sources that I was able to turn up in a quick search.[96][97][98][99][100]--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If this really has been going for nearly 75 years, surely it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable based upon longevity. The sourcing of this article currently stinks, but that's not a terminal illness... Seventy-five years for a radio show seems a slam dunk for notability. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lenght of existence is not an established criteria for notability in WP. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, and no decent secondary sources. Also, most of the rocks on the planet have been around longer than 75 years, but not every one deserves an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has been around for 75 years, but has done nothing else notable. Drewbug (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — east718 | talk | 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kind of Trouble

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing known yet; although there is a song by Tanya Tucker with this same name that most likely warrants an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS: No track listing and not enough verified information to warrant a stand-alone article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes source(s) that confine(s) to WP:IRS. As per WP:NALBUMS, the album will be called Some Kind of Trouble & James Blunt is certainly a notable artist. Bod720 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.76.12 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and incubate until further information is confirmed. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Blunt. Cindamuse (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ken Fox

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaty Towers

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

Non-notable college residence hall. 28bytes (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Tom Petty wrote a song about this dorm (enough said). The 2 towers are very notable structures at the prestigious University of Florida as well. Jccort (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Petty says he did not. I'm inclined to believe him. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to University of Florida. (see below) There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about these dormitories; they are not significant historically or architecturally, and the Tom Petty connection is an urban legend which he says is not true. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and more I was going to say merge into List of University of Florida buildings but then I noticed that there are multiple entries there that appear similarly unimportant, yet they have articles. I suggest a large part of those entires be deleted too, as none of them deserve an entry anywhere else than FUs website. Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, there are dozens of them! Some of them probably do deserve articles - such as the ones listed at University of Florida Campus Historic District - but the article you cite mentions every last building in loving detail, complete with photo. But on second glance the situation isn't as bad as it looks; for example, many of those blue-linked dormitories are actually redirects to University of Florida student housing rather than full articles. That seems appropriate. So I am changing my !vote from "Delete" to Redirect to University of Florida student housing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It doesn't really matter that the Tom Petty connection is just an urban legend, what matters is that the legend has generated coverage of the buildings. Merging is an editorial decision that can be worked out on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Consensus is not clear; therefore I'm relisting this conversation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pax, the legend is still an urban legend no matter whether or not it's true. Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The urban legend is already covered in the American Girl (song) article. Why is the dorm itself — as opposed to the urban legend — notable? 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pax. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purported encyclopedic content includes mostly material like this: "Beaty East has 13 floors and Beaty West has 14 floors. The third building is the Beaty's Common. Beaty's commons contains the area desk which is open 24 hours and residents use this to pick up packages, get keys in case they get locked out, or check out equipment for the rec room. In addition there is a rec room which contains pool tables, ping pong tables and foosball. There is also a large screen TV in the TV room. In addition to the recreation rooms there is also a study room. Finally, attached to the commons is Beaty Market which is open till 4am everyday. It a small convient store which is open to anyone who wants a quick bite to eat," I know it can be removed, and will be if the article is kept, but it indicates how little substantial there is to write about. The material on the purported suicide is already in American Girl (song), with almost exactly the same wording. After deletion, if someone should search for Beaty Towers in Wikipedia looking for what might be notable about it, that will remain one of the search results. It takes much more than this to make a college dormitory notable, & the only safe thing I know is to look for architectural notability, which is absent here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete. The urban legend about the dorm might be notable, and is adequately covered at the article about the song. The dorm itself is not notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelzoom

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

Fails notability according to WP:BAND. While the band has released two albums, they have been released on an independent/mail order label. I don't see where they meet any of the criteria established under the applicable notability guideline for bands. Cindamuse (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, but a selective merge to X-Perience may be in order.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as it does not appear to be notable. The notability is so low, that the artist itself does not have an article but instead is redirected here. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk Blues Band

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

Not a notable band. Ggeegee (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Assuming good faith on foreign language sources inaccessible to me, I think this article does enough to assert notability. Note that the nom has not notified the article creator, User:Raoniz, who on his talk page appears to show a COI by identifying as the son of the band's lead singer. Eek! Bigger digger (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band lasted for two years. It is not clear to me that they have any notability, and the fact that there is no article on the French wikipedia is not particularly encouraging. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Tomahawk Blues Band is a jazz legend in Belgium and in the whole world. How many jazz bands have seen a film producer interested in producing a feature film only with the band as actors, composers and performers of the music ? And this only due to their musical value. Film that was broadcasted on television channels of the whole world. How many jazz bands have seen a theater producer who asked them to compose and to perform the music of a play of Fernando Arrabal ?
Archives & Museum literature asbl Center for Research and Documentation literary and drama of the French Community of Belgium : L'Aurore rouge et noire
Archives & Musée de la littérature asbl Centre de recherche et de documentation littéraires et théâtrales de la Communauté française de Belgique(Archives & Museum literature asbl Center for Research and Documentation literary and drama of the French Community of Belgium)
Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p. 86: Tomahawk Blues Band, isbn = 90-5096-069-3
Memory 60 / 70 Tomahawk Blues Band
Tomahawk Blues Band page Greetings. Raoniz (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horny (song). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 'n' Juicy

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

No information provided or found that establishes notability according to WP:BAND outside of producing two or three singles (based on which website says what). It appears that they have done some session work or mixed tracks with other acts, but nothing to independently to establish notability, that I can find. The rebel in me would really like to hear there sound, but nothing found. Cindamuse (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Cindamuse (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Horny (song), since it is apparently their only recording. According to this, Hot 'n' Juicy was a duo comprising Emma Lanford and Inaya Day, the latter of which had several subsequent solo hits, but I'm not sure this is correct as I thought they were a duo from Birmingham, and Day simply provided vocals to "Horny" in addition to Hot 'n' Juicy. This is borne out by a few items of local newspaper coverage I found on the UK News archive (not significant coverage), indicating a duo of Nadine Richardson (who left in 1999) and Emma Southam, with Nikki Bell joining in 1998. I'll add these sources to the article so that if this does result in a merge we'll at least have some sources.--Michig (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with the song they became famous for (although even that song might be worth merging into the South Park album). Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undampori

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

Unsourced, un-notable and will probably never grow beyond a few sentences. Plus, if my neighbor is correct, this isn't even the correct recipe. Nolelover 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a sweet snack;) The correct recipe can be found here. Salih (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it's just a stub for a new user's first article that's only been around for 29 days. I didn't find references, other than the recipe cited by Salih, so Nolelover may be correct that this will never grow beyond a few sentences. I'm just wondering if running an AFD on what seems to be a good faith effort so soon is just a bit too bitey. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I found it at the bottom of the new page patrol, and from what I've read, those 30 or so days are usually enough to decide an articles worth, and whether or not the creator will continue to contribute. Not only has User:Subashsimon2007 not edited this article since then, he hasn't edited at all. Nolelover 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks for the recipe, but nothing to give it notability... Bigger digger (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete is this recipe famous or even used outside the region it originated? Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shampain

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

This article is created prematurely. It is full of referencing and notability errors. For a start its single cover is taken from twitter, its release date is taken from the highly unreliable and volatile radio1.gr (which has no official affiliation to the UK or US) and there is not enough independent coverage to warrant a stand alone page. Overall the song fails WP:NSONGS as it has not charted also. Would be best to merge to The Family Jewels (album) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It’d be pedantic and a waste of time to deleted an article for it to be remade within a month. The article is also currently being viewed up to 200 times a day, and will be more up to the release. It isn’t full of referencing or notability errors. Twitter is a completely fine source if it’s an official account (this has been OK on Wikiepdia in the past), the release date has been confirmed by her record label. To see all the "independent coverage" please see here. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep it appears to have at least two independent, reliable sources. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in major newspapers. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Relay Chat admin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John S. McCain IV}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probortunity}}