Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding AfD for Noron theory. (TW)
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanaxtasy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noron theory}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noron theory}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sift Heads}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sift Heads}}

Revision as of 14:41, 26 January 2011

< 25 January 27 January >

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) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanaxtasy

Xanaxtasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The artlce is for a digital download single (of songs previously available on a 'best of' album); it's not notable in anyway.  Doktor  Wilhelm  14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noron theory


Noron theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All my searches for reliable sources on this subject, have failed to find any reference to "Noron theory" (or anything related) outside of wikipedia and its numerous mirrors. This strongly implies that no WP:RSs on the subject exist. In particular, this "theory" fails to be WP:N (if it exists at all).TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC) TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that blurbs and ads are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Did you click on his link? It's not an ad - it's a book. ISBN 1156622859 122.104.146.215 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ad for a book by a bookseller. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Are you suggesting I am going to have to buy the book to determine whether this article is verifiable? 122.104.146.215 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or find the book in a library. Simply knowing that there is a book that says it discusses "Noron theory" is not enough to establish notability. For all we know the book may simply reprint what is in the current wikipedia article. In fact, looking at the excerpt given, it seems likely that that book is just an integral reprint of the the category:time travel.TR 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Books LLC does seem to reprint Wikipedia content. Per WP:BURDEN you need to supply the relevant quote from the book and indicate how it relates to the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have retrieved the book from my university library. I cannot retype the discussion of the Noron Theory here - it will take too long. The discussion would appear to be quite different from what is on Wikipedia however. Anyone have some ideas? --haxmax (talk) 11:29, 01 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) [reply]
Burden is still on you to produce a reliable source. Also, don't forget to log on and properly sign your comments. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why more discussion? Consensus is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Because according to Noron Theory, we live in retarded times. Yakushima (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article originator is WP:SPA, and the sole book source IDed above is reported by Google Books to be sourced entirely from Wikipedia [1]. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and not even notable fringe. Yakushima (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone recently notified me of this article, and I had to create an account just to comment here. Although I was aware that my theory had been circulating the halls of Cambridge for some time, I had no idea it had penetrated Wikipedia (I am still unsure whether to be flattered or insulted). I had mentioned the theory briefly in lectures at Cambridge prior to transferring to ALMA, and obviously one of my keen students has produced an article from the scant information from me. The present article slightly misrepresents the true Noron theory (which is much more involved than what is presented in this article); nevertheless, the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in). The Noron theory has been published in peer reviewed journals (ESO Messenger), but not under the name 'Noron theory', which is the code name I gave it after the passing of my cat, Noron (I have never heard of Jayesh). Should the article be kept, I would be happy to transfer some of my research into the article over the next few weeks/months but I cannot make promises regarding dates as I have enough deadlines I need to worry about. RichardHills (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)— RichardHills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Well, that basically confirms that this article does not meet the notability requirements of WP:N.TR 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also ESO messenger is not a peer reviewed journal, see [2].TR 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the theory's own originator tells us it's generally unknown outside "the halls of Cambridge." EEng (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment RichardHills: "the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in)." Those must be some very tight circles. Googling on "Richard Hills" and "retarded time" in google scholar, books, and groups produces no discussion whatsoever. Is it not just that the theory is under a different name, but also all the terms used in the theory? Can you give us a theory name under which it is notable, by Wikipedia's (possibly insulting, at least to RichardHill) standards? Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read the book which is listed above, and it would appear to confirm the scientific rigour of the Noron Theory. I have scanned the relevant chapter of the book, but it cannot be uploaded here as evidence. Also, I notice the comments for R. Hills, who states that his theory is been largely accepted by his peers. Christopher tomline (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— Christopher tomline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply There is no need to upload the scan of the book for any kind of verification. As far as we can tell, the book section that addresses this supposed Noron Theory derives from the AfD Wikipedia article in question. The book is from a print-on-demand "publisher" -- it costs them next to nothing to list a non-existent book on Amazon, in hopes that somebody will (perhaps only by accident) do a one-click impulse buy. It also costs them next to nothing to print the Wikipedia articles out with some boilerplate and send it in the mail. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fringe work. Eeekster (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. All keep !votes thus far originate from single purpose accounts.TR 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to jump on Hills. He said right out that he created an account to come here to discuss, so he wasn't trying to sneak in as an SPA. The other accounts surely are SPAs but there's no reason to think they are Hill -- maybe some students -- I get the clear feeling Hill knows nothing about WP:N and came here because someone directed him to the discussion. This is a clear delete so let's drop it. EEng (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I said "keep" and this is not an SPA.Haxmax (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. .... I have been a registered user for three years. How does this make me a "newly registered user"? Haxmax (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed a clear delete, as you;ll see in the next few days. And you are a veritable archetype of an SPA [3], plus there's something fishy going on with you as well. [4] [5] EEng (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [multiple recommendations from same editor] This is more than just a dictionary definition, and upon reading the book it is evident that there is a lot more you can include in this article. Haxmax (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)— Haxmax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This article should be deleted promptly. It contains a link to my web page at the Cavendish and claims that I originated this theory, which I did not. The article has just been pointed out to me and I consider that it has no scientific merit whatsoever. The entries above purporting to come from me are not from me. If there is a way of banning from Wikipedia the impostor who posted those entries, then I suggest that you consider doing that. It is obviously unacceptable to pretend to be somebody else in order to try to gain credibility for their unsupported theories. Richard Hills, Prof of Radio Astronomy, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.0.129 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any passing admin, please attend to this odd situation... See post immediately above -- if closure is possible now, let's do it. EEng (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that any of the claimants is genuine. Suggest put it on AN/I and delete swiftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure if this is the real richard hills or some imposter. there are now two people claiming to be richard hills poting comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.248.131 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no scientist but a friend of Haxmax who is I know he holds a Phd in science is. We saw this "Noron Theory" some time ago and found it interesting. I have since heard it disscussed on the ABC radio with Richard Fidler some time ago. I believe it has merit in concept. Ian Harbottle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.169.157 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 121.208.169.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep There would now appear to be overwheling evidence for keeping this article. I suggest that we can stop editing this discussion, and revert to improving the main article.Haxmax (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick tally of votes: four votes for 'delete' and six for 'keep'. Lets move on from this trivial discussion, and as suggested, we should continue to contribute to the underlying science of this theory. Christopher tomline (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Christopher tomline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Heartily agreed Chris - science should not be hindered by trivial naysayers. Rocket Scientist01 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Rocket Scientist01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Others have claimed that this is a non-notable fringe work. This is clearly incorrect. If a book released by a reputable publishing-house includes a comprehensive discussion of the Noron Theory, then this is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.Cameron mcleod (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)— Cameron mcleod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources + lots of pile-on !voting by new accounts suggests a hoax, or at least a very unnotable theory. First Light (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all participants, especially the newcomers who may not be aware of how this works: This is not a poll, it is a discussion. Arguments with a solid basis in Wikipedia policies are given greater weight. Most relevant here would seem to be the policies on fringe science and notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - with hopes that the particularly obvious sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets involved will be thoroughly investigated. Non-notable, nonsensical fringe theory without any basis or notice anywhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - clearly some users have a hidden agenda, and are trying to delete this notable theory for no apparent reason. Ferris Claire (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Ferris Claire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Delete - Simply because these immature sockpuppets/meatpuppets are trying so hard to have it kept and the vast majority of respectable Wikipedians support deletion; if it's notable enough to be kept these sockpuppets wouldn't have to resort to voting fraud to try and save it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I support deleting this, although interstingly Professor Richard Hills appear to support keeping this article. Sock purpet (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Mandsford 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sift Heads

Sift Heads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable game, A7 does not apply. No sources that indicate notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. I think for an "online flash game" {{db-web}} "article about a web site, blog... browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" covers it, but I'll leave for another admin so as to get a second pair of eyes. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, my mistake. I should have tagged for A7 because it's a web game. But, based on the comment below, A7 wouldn't have been honored so I guess it's okay that we're here. — Timneu22 · talk 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 declined asserts millions of players and multiple awards... though these are completely unreferenced. I've also cleaned up the spelling, grammar, and punctuation a bit. This article has all the hallmarks of being created by a young fan of these games. I'm seeing a lot of Ghits on the game, but none that spring to the fore as clearly RS. This would be a great job for a rescue. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC) - Thank you Mr. Jclemens. Thank you.[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, per complete lack of independent sources, let alone to prove the claim of popularity (the only "notability" claim the article makes). I agree with Jclemens...could be fixable if someone can find some actual WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)- I'll find more sources. I already found one new one.[reply]

Please allow this article stay. This game means alot to people around the world and almost everyone in my community loves it. Please don't delete it! Please! I'm begging you!- tyler775

  • Delete. I took at shot at finding sources, but failed to turn up anything but self-published web content. Doesn't look like this game has ever gotten any attention from reliable sources, unfortunately. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Notability not made by a mile. Also note that Sift heads was deleted about 5 times already and salted (but no AFD, so we might as well develop that consensus now). –MuZemike 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melted Music

Melted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This label having produced zero albums to date is not yet notable. Also, of the references provided, #2 is not independent of the subject, #3 is a blog, #4 is the subject's Twitter site, and I don't recognize the link in #5, but sites ending in .ws typically aren't reliable in my experience.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bar None (nightclub)

Bar None (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability. The only hint at notability is a notoriety inherited from an earlier establishment at the same address, but no sources can be found to verify that notoriety, and if sources could be found, the article should be written about the former notorious establishment rather than the current non-notable establishment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I love me some old school punk rock, but notability is not inherited. I saw some of these same bands at other no-name clubs, and GG Allin would play anywhere they would let him get away with all the broken glass, bodily fluids, etc that accompanied his shows. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fcuking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.144.20 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space at Chase

Space at Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assertions of notability are not backed up by references, nor can any significant coverage be found to cite. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought of doing that but wasn't sure if it was allowed. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, no. All we have is "the place existed." There is no evidence that it was any more important in the punk music scene than any of the hundreds of other punk clubs that existed in the 90s. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan

AfDs for this article:
Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This smells like a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. The creator and main contributor, User:BrittyGirl, is a single-purpose account, probably the article's subject himself. Anyway, I don't see how this meets WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Winning a major award in your industry -- an Academy Award, a Grammy, the Turner Prize, etc. -- tends to grant notability, as such awards are widely publicised, and those they are awarded to tend to be well-known in their business, and thus will have coverage in their industry's publications. However, I'm finding it difficult to find any third-party reliable source coverage beyond the mere fact of the award. Can anyone else help dig out a cite, perhaps to an industry publication? -- The Anome (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, too, whether there actually is a source for him winning the award. A Google News search for this guy returns zero results. --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on what I have found so far. The article claims that he was credited with winning a Grammy for Mary J. Blige's album Growing Pains. However, a search at Grammy.com (scroll down for "Past Winners Search") for the title "growing pains" indicates that the album won Best Contemporary R&B Album, but the credited winners were "Mary J. Blige, artist. Dave Pensado, Jaycen Joshua & Kuk Harrell, engineers." Since O'Ryan is not mentioned as one of the engineers credited for this award, this is a significant detriment to the claim of his notability. While the subject does appear to have worked on notable albums and for notable recording artists, his usual role as a recording engineer does not tend to put him in the public eye, nor has he received any significant media coverage about himself personally as far as I can find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Without a cite to back up the Grammy Award, or any other news coverage to establish notability per WP:BIO, I'm afraid this looks like a delete, unless someone can come up with a cite in the next week or so. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The GRammy "win" was actually for a 2008 album. See [6]. He is not listed in the award credits. Not everyybody who works on an award winning album is considered to have won the award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't find any significant coverage, nor can I verify that the subject was credited for a Grammy for his work with Mary J. Blige. O'Ryan is listed as one of the Teenage Dream engineers on the official Grammy site (see Category 2, "Album of the Year"), and the description under the heading makes it seem like he would get an award if the album wins in a couple weeks. Anyway, that's all I could come up with.  Gongshow Talk 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a resumé, complete with the 8x10 glossy. There are millions of sound engineers and producers out there without Wiki articles. The person is not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- Cactusjump (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but the question is which of these millions do merit a Wikipedia article. some will, but how to we tell, given that their contribution is not as prominently publicized as the artists themselves?. To what extent can we go by their work on a notable project where their contributions, though not as important as the prize-winning artist, were obviously essential?. I'm asking these as questions, because I don't claim to know the answers. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The author removed all content except the AfD notice, and I have speedy-deleted it under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchi Dass

Ruchi Dass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn puff piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a very few people in the world who have done something credible in mhealth and those who are need to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.130.179 (talk)
  • Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it true. The article fails to provide adequate reliable sources to support the claim of notability. In addition, please do not remove the AfD notice from the article, it will not stop the process and is considered vandalism. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opium dream estate

Opium dream estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to fail to address the WP:BAND guidelines due to a lack of potential sources to demonstrate the significant impact required or being published under a notable record label. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. 4 albums and no notability? Keep going for that dream guys. MLA (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BVC Airlines

BVC Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral Was tagged as a CSD, but it does have an assertion of notability. It did find this which seems to indicate that the airline existed, however it is unclear whether they still operate. Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—Based on a google search it does appear notable.[7][8] They have apparently merged with Saudi Arabian Airlines,[9] so the articles could also be merged.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some content from what appeared at first sight to be reasonable sources, but there is a fishy smell about them. I will check a bit further, but am starting to suspect that the company exists only as a mirage at the place in the Sahara where Libya, Algeria and Nigeria share a common border. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is no evidence for existence of Barthe Cortes and BVC Airlines apart from articles placed in websites that appear unreliable such as africacoolpage, whatsupkenya, and sites that give the impression of news sites but always have Cortes on the front page such as observermedianews, [africaheadlines.co.cc/ africaheadlines (WP blacklisted)], thekampalanews, afrikghana, saudiarabicnews etc. Interesting, though. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elaborate hoax/scam. afrikaghana.com, saudiarabicnews.com are anonymously registered domains, which usually indicates spammers. They are also registered by the same obscure registrar. africaheadlines.co.cc is on the blacklist. The other two have more normal looking registrations, but the lack of a single hit on gnews strongly argues against notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The sites look like clones of legitimate sites, with a news article on BVC added. http://saudiarabicnews.com/ is a clone of http://arabnews.com/, http://afrikghana.com/ is a clone of http://www.afrik-news.com/ and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Islamic funeral. NW (Talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view on the human corpse

Islamic view on the human corpse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research paper Travelbird (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe keep The general topic is certainly notable. Is there another article that gives information on it? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned that parts of the text may be copyvio, although I cannot find the original source, a possible giveaway is the sentence: "Muslim jurists allowed dissection of human bodies and autopsy, provi-ded the relatives' consent is obtained" (bolding is mine) which looks like an imported hyphen as the typo is not a plausible one. Assuming that the content is not a copyvio, I think the topic largely overlaps Islamic death rituals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverified original research. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islamic death rituals, salvage anything not too OR. --JaGatalk 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. I have already pointed the author towards the Islam Wiki. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be WP:OR and possible WP:CFORK of Islamic death rituals. Nothing to merge, and I don't see the value of a redirect as a search term or a need to preserve any history here. (And, ow, the overlinking hurts the eyes. :P) --Kinu t/c 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islamic funeral Someone65 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islamic funeral; if nobody can be arsed, redirect it and note on the Islamic funeral talk page Shii (tock) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the article appears to have serious problems as has been pointed out, but it is also 5 days old and has been up for deletion for 2-3 days already. The 23rd was last Sunday. If we have a weekend editor unfamiliar with our processes, they would hardly have time to react to this deletion discussion. Something needs to be done about the lack of citations, but the material is promising. Aquib (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • 1) WP:OR The author seems to know what he/she is talking about. However this is essentially a research paper and a such not permissible. Even if it seems as though the editor knows what they are talking about, we have no way of verifying it. To keep up Wikipedia's standards at least a little bit, we cannot allow original research here.
      • 2) Deletion process: The article was originally WP:PRODed. The tag was then removed and it was put up for deletion here. By the end of the process there will have been 10 days for someone to fundamentally re-write the article. Unfortunately we don't have enough people working on new page patrol to actually monitor hundreds of pages for a couple of weeks to see what becomes of them. So we have to insist that if a new article is created, it must pass Wikipedia's quality standards within the period of deletion review which lasts a minimum of 7 days. Travelbird (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note (ctd) I am attempting to contact the author for sources. -Aquib (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial reaction was 'Oh, Gawd!' but I mightn't be allowed to say that. My second reaction was, 'Hey, this feller knows what he's talking about'. Unfortunately, the style is a little dogmatic rather than being encyclopaedic. Also, most if not all is already in both Islamic funeral and Islamic death rituals - out of curiosity, why do we have the two of them anyway? I agree with Sjakkalle about that hyphen - I spotted it when reading the article before reading the discussion (my normal practice). It usually indicated a copy and paste from somewhere using fully justified text; left justified text like this should not use hyphenation. [takes professional hat off again] As to the three articles, Islamic funeral is the most NPOV, Islamic death rituals is less encyclopaedic in my view, and perhaps anything of value here ought to be incorporated in one or other of those two - whichever is chosen. Is there a process for deciding which of two rather than a straight delete or not? Peridon (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that I liked the use of 'ascendants', but I've delinked it because the target appeared to be some astrological stuff that was hardly likely to be the intended result. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the problems with the article are, they can be fixed through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. The subject itself is significant and probably notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already got two on the subject... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'd see those as articles about closely related, but distinct subjects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. All of these seem to be to do with when someone of an Islamic persuasion dies. They approach it from a different angle and use different styles, but the basic manual looks to have the same instructions. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, these should be merged into two articles (or one). --JaGatalk 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Possible merger to Albanian Resistance of World War II. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Albania

Liberation of Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discussion was misplaced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APOX, thus moved. Travelbird (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One line page thats only been edited by two users. No notability. Delete or and merge into an albanian page. --K1eyboard (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously a notable event. I'm aware the the people there did not feel very liberated at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, of course it needs expansion but there is no reason to delete.Polyamorph (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Redirect to Albanian Resistance of World War II , where this very notable part of history is already covered with the detail that an encyclopedia is supposed to have. "Liberation of Albania" is a logical search term, and should direct the reader to something more than the lone sentence "The Liberation of Albania is considered to be the liberation of Albania from nazi Germany forces on November 29, 1944." Fortunately, other people wrote about this already. Mandsford 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gene93k's point above: yes, this is highly notable, but no, it does not require a separate article. Yakushima (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It just requires expansion. The resistance lasted 5 years and this was the final act. There is some notability as to the fact that there is a lot of discussion in Albania as to whether it was a chosen date to have the same liberation day with the Yugoslavs or because it just happened to be that day. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also added a book from historian Bicoku that treats exclusively about this day and the falsification of documents to claim that the last German soldier to leave Albania did so in November 29, while this is not corresponding to the historical truth. You may delete for now as I don't have access to the book, but I find copy pasted pieces of the book in several blogs such as this, which I cannot rely on for now. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wouldn't be opposed to an article about an Albanian national holiday commemorating the decided date at which liberation was considered final. But otherwise, "the liberation of Albania" describes what that was and how it was done, from beginning to end. An existing article already does that. Yakushima (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about liberating Albania from the communists, or from the Ottoman Empire? 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That thought occurred to me also, but neither of those involved partisans fighting to liberate a nation from an occupying force. In the case of the Communists, it was a relatively peaceful transition from one Albanian government to another, and Albania had cut its ties with the Soviets many years before that. As for the Ottoman Empire, the creation of Albania and other states was something imposed by the victors on the vanquished after the Central Powers surrendered. Like Yakushima, I'm not opposed to this being about what's referred to there as Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit". Maybe this can be renamed Liberation Day (Albania), and we can be done with it. Looking back on it, I think that the person who created this was simply wanting to write a sentence or two about why November 29 is a holiday, rather than the CliffNotes version of the history of the Albanian resistance movement. I'm not sure why people think that this is the first time that the topic has ever been written about on Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I as a newbie, created this article, and didn't think it would create such a mess. It simply is the Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit", as the Independence Day is November 28, 1912 (Albanian Declaration of Independence). I agree to moving it to Liberation Day (Albania). --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Well, sometimes people search wrong, and read too lazily, and jump to conclusions. People like, well, me. Sometimes,[10] anyway. :-( Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure or redirect -- We could have an article on a holiday and its origin, but the present article has too little content to survive and (if not restructured like that) should be redirected as Mandsford suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should be expanded but stubs don't need deletion. --Vinie007 20:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did some expansion --Vinie007 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my original !vote for "obvious redirect", based on Vinie007's excellent work, since that's no longer an obvious suggestion, and improvements should be encouraged. To some extent, though, I agree with Nipsonanomhmata-- it would work just as well to make Vinie's information as a section in the other article (a merge) and to preserve the title Liberation of Albania as a redirect to that section, i.e., a redirect to "Albanian Resistance of World War II#Liberation Day". Just some thoughts there. Mandsford 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Somauroo

Saad Somauroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

High school student that won a couple of school and student awards, however not nearly enough to assert real notability. Travelbird (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7: No indication of importance. Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Vanity page or a form of resume. Might even be a school exercise - nicely set out and better than most I see. No awards that are really notable. He's a good, hard-working lad who may go far, but he's only starting yet. I wish him luck, anyway. You need that as well as hard work these days... Peridon (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meryem Uzerli

Meryem Uzerli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress that played minor roles only in several films. Fails:Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Travelbird (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is one of the main characters of Muhteşem Yüzyıl which is the most watched soap opera in Turkey now.[11] Hürrem (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hürrem.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ENT. Requires mulitple major roles, this person only has one. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on her name gives 633,000 hits. That is enough to establish that she is not a unknown actress. And infact it shows that even though she might have only had one major role she has with that role established the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actress also has an Turkish wikipedia article which also shows that she has reached fame in her native country and are in fact a actress which should have a wikipedia article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that fact that this is not really a valid keep or delete reason: the Turkish article was created on January 26, 2011 on the same day the English language article was. By your reasoning I guess that would be a reason to delete it? Travelbird (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally ignoring the 633,000 hits reason. Typical of the deletionists..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also even though the turkish article might have been created it has not been deleted or anything eve though it has been a week since its creation there. It proves that in Turkey the subject has notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:GOOGLEHITS it's an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour road

Seymour road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor road in Hong Kong. (see [12]. Not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by OlEnglish. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZURA

AZURA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable property development Travelbird (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Lahiri

Koushik Lahiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:AUTO by non-notable Indian dermatologist, who is a WP:SPA for self-promotion. Tagged for notability for a year and a half now without any improvement. Most of the sources provided by subject have turned out to be bogus and have been removed. There is no actual WP:RS to demonstrate notability of any sort. Qworty (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no notability here. Being on an editorial board of a specialized journal is not being notable. Perchloric (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnie Merrey

Tahnie Merrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor that played a minor part in several episodes of a drama series in 1996. Doesn't seem to have played any roles since. Travelbird (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APOX

APOX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

5 day old newly released computer game without any assertion of particular notability. Travelbird (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer for a week or so, given the relative novelty of this game, it's entirely possible that it WILL be notable (through mutliple, in-depth RS reviews) within the next week or several in-depth reviews. That is, if it's not already notable via what Google News has been able to find on it so far. At any rate, it's not clear to me why this article was immediately tagged for deletion, rather than sourcing and notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding Defer - It seems lately that review sites have been slower about catching up on reviews, seems a bit early to nomination for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a little research I turned up two references, one from a source considered reliable at WP:VG/RS and one that looks actually better than the first to me, and which I've proposed to be included at WP:VG/RS. With it already having attracted arguably WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, I'm pretty sure it's notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So far all of the sources provided simply prove that the game exists. None of them show any notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't appear to understand what "notability" means. Coverage in independent reliable sources is what demonstrates notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really want to get into an argument, but you don't seems to know what notability is. Most of the sources are simply redacted versions of the release announcement. this comes closer to a review but is still rather short. WP:N also requires "more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Notability need to be long term. The article also needs to show how this particular game is notable i.e. what sets it apart from all the other games out there. By the standards set out above, every commercially published video game would be notable as press releases and blog reviews can be found covering it. Travelbird (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On Wikipedia, all "notability" really means is "should we have an article on this?", and WP:GNG defines that as about independent reliable source coverage. Your claim that the article needs to assert notability is specifically false; "assertion of notability" is not a part of WP:N, it's a matter of CSD A7, which does not apply to this game because it is not a person, individual animal, organization, or Web content. Wikipedia's notability rules are sufficiently fascist and privileging of the viewpoint of soulless organizations that exist to make people like Rupert Murdoch richer without arrogating additional, consensus-not-in-evidence criteria about whether the sources say the topic is important. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, gamershell is a reliable source. No, a press release isn't independent coverage. Co-Optimus needs vetting for reliability. However, how about Rock Paper Shotgun's interview with Mark Currie of BlueGiant? Trivial piece at indiegames.com. I need to see one more piece of coverage - search continues. Marasmusine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the Co-Optimus source is unlikely to pass, but the other two sources are reliable. Combined with the small indiegames.com found by Marasmusine I'd say this is Stub or Start-worthy for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently non-commercial in tone. Doubtlessly up a bit sooner than an article on this topic should have been, but I'd advocate use of the rule of reason here: "Is Wikipedia better served by the inclusion or deletion of this article?" The piece as it stands has some early sourcing going and may be of use to WP users; it's deletion would not advance the encyclopedia project, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parade (group)

Parade (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for band without released album Travelbird (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Payne

Zach Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN candidate for local office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Travelbird (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cleaned up the page so reviewers can focus on whether he meets BLP requirements. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Since he hasn't been elected yet, also fails WP:CRYSTAL. And I'm not sure he would be notable even if he were elected to such a humble office. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Young mayors may be notable, but young candidates for city council are not. The only source in the article that mentions Payne mentions him as part of wider election coverage, not as a subject in his own right. So even if this were a notable election, WP:BLP1E would apply. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's doubtful if even the elected mayor of a city of under 40,000 population would be considered automatically notable, so a candidate for a place on the city council is way below the bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eflak Stancu

Eflak Stancu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Clearly a hoax. Probably made up by a turkish fan. Mrromaniac (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The question here is not notablility, so however many reliable sources won't help. Our question is, is this topic unified enough as a concept to be encyclopedic? Unfortunately no. The article, as it stands, is inherently WP:OR. As Nipsonanomhmata mentions, the sources must show that such a well-defined concept exists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somalian Genocide

Somalian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal opinions / OR Travelbird (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the existing article with one which is sourced to BBC, Times, human rights orgs and African media. I also flagged it for rescue. Please take another look and see whether it now should survive the AFD, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news archive search for "Somalia" AND "genocide" brings up thousands of results. [15] The references added to the article are already enough to prove this exist, and gets coverage. Dream Focus 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I too did a Google news archive search for "Somalia genocide" AND "Somalian genocide" and got a maximum of only 60 results. I also did a Google web search for "Somalian genocide" and it initially claimed that there were more than 4,000 results but when I clicked through to the last page there were only 370 results in total and at least 225 of those were spawned out of Wikipedia.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced. The article is certainly a lot better--but it does not clarify, for instance, which killing by which group of which other group in which time is supposed to be called "Somalian genocide." That there are lots of hits for the combination of words is not a surprise considering the area's history, and that there are commentators and NGOs that call events or series of events a genocide is also not very surprising--but that's hardly the same as having a well-documented and objectively established genocide of which, unfortunately, we have plenty. See Armenian Genocide, for instance. Or, for comparison, Croatia–Serbia genocide case, where there is a court case alleging a genocide--that's a far cry from observers and some media calling it by such a proper name. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are raising a useful point, but "genocide" is really a term of art and historical usage, and does not require any government or other authority to approve its use. Armenian Genocide is an example of one so-called because enough people have called it that for long enough; no one was ever tried for war crimes and Turkey has never accepted the label. Your concerns go more to weight issues than inclusion, and could be addressed by including a reliable source saying that what's happening in Somalia is not genocide.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just would like to add that genocide scholars have formally recognised the Armenian genocide. Moreover, many countries, and a number of States in the United States, have also formally recognised the Armenian genocide as fact. Thus far no genocide scholar has claimed that there is a "Somalian genocide" and no country has formally recognised that there has been a "Somalian genocide".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not arguing that people can't use it in this context, far from it. What I'm asking is a sharply-defined definition of the subject of the article supported by reliable sources--more than a Google search or a few mentions. I'll go through some of those references in the next few days, but that's something that the keepers should do as well, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you Drmies. Genocide is a serious subject that needs to be backed up by genocide scholars. Backing it up with quotes from individuals, newspapers, and the rest of the media isn't enough.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely OR. One particular citation got my attention. The one alleging genocide against "fighters". If they are fighting in a war then it isn't a genocide. But that is only one issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a difference how many newspapers or individuals claim genocide. The genocide scholars have to recognise that it is a genocide. If it isn't recognised as a genocide by scholars who specialise in genocide (fully backed up by their citations) then it hasn't been classified as such. When you do a search for "Somalian genocide" on Google Scholar not one scholarly citation is returned that claims there is a "Somalian genocide". Therefore, according to genocide scholars no "Somalian genocide" has been formally recognised yet. If it hasn't been formally recognised as such, even if/when it has happened, then "Somalian genocide" is just an allegation.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, Catherne Besteman, professor of anthology at Colby College is already cited in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catherne Besteman is not a genocide scholar. She doesn't specialize in the study of genocide. There are scholars who specialize in genocide.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article as stands meets Wikipedia notability amd reliable source requirements. Statements that "its not a genocide" because some professor or another didn't say so, or a professor who did say so is not qualified, are effectively original research and synthesis, unless you have a source to back them up. If you do, suggest we add it to the article. In any event, deleting it is the wrong way to go. If we have a neutral article representing all sides of the issue, people can decide for themselves whether its a genocide or not. No article, they can't. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Republic of Turkey still refers to the officially recognised Armenian Genocide as an alleged genocide (because the government of Turkey is still in denial). However, the Armenian Genocide is formally recognised by genocide scholars and by many nations. If there is to be an article about a "Somalian Genocide" that has not yet been recognised by genocide scholars, or by any country, then the word "alleged" needs to be in the title. Not because I am a denialist but because no formal recognition has yet happened (almost four years after Catherne wrote her article).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly book from Indiana University Press with sections on Somalian genocide. Oh, and here's one where Boutros Boutros Ghali in his 1999 memoir refers to a Somalian genocide According to his Wikipedia bio, "was a Fulbright Research Scholar at Columbia University from 1954 to 1955, Director of the Centre of Research of the Hague Academy of International Law from 1963 to 1964, and Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Law at Paris University from 1967 to 1968", before becoming Secretary General of the UN in 1991.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not one of them is a scholar that specializes in the study of genocide. Here's a book that says that there was no genocide in Somalia [16]. Do a search for "not one of genocide" in the book itself and it will highlight the sentence on page 21 where it says "The Somalian case was, of course, not one of genocide." It makes no difference in any case. No country has yet recognised a "Somalian Genocide" so it doesn't matter what anybody says because they are all just allegations.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are finding information which belongs in the article, and I will add it--it is not a reason for deletion. Note our Genocide article includes information on disputed instances, such as Sudan. You are now arguing that in order to be notable an alleged genocide must have been recognized as such by one or more other countries, but this is not existing Wikipedia policy.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a virtual world full of inconsistency and information that is not factual. It's more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, when we search for things on Google it is information that is stuffed in to Wikipedia that is usually listed first. If Wikipedia says that there is a Somalian genocide then that will convince many people that there was a Somalian genocide. However, if no genocide scholar and no country recognises the fact it is just another allegation listed by Wikipedia that is disguised as fact. I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Thank you for the opportunity.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSA Records

UNSA Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record company. References are to trivial mentions or primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the band is licenced, has produced matierial from numerous bands, and have distribution deals in New York, New Jersey, and are growing into new markets. All of this can be evidenced through photographs, and receipts. Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. The pursuit of a spot on wikipedia is evidence of this, as well as its spot on the websites listed on the page. They list the label, and recognize it on Primary websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete 7 Ghits, all from Wikipedia. Therefore fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CORP at the very least.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources. Nothing satisfying WP:CORP. (I'm not sure what part of what Makk is saying above is meant to say UNSA are notable). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Franks

Jon Franks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to find references supporting notability.... PRODed and PROD deleted without any enhancement or comment. Ariconte (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable (band)

Unstable (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music. None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."


Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.[reply]

Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better." Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.


Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP." Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.

No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.

Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)

  • Don't Delete. Furthermore

7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music."

Response: Disagreed and addressed in the previous entry.

Among the sources in the Unstable article is links to a Newspaper interview, Radio appearance, major venue pages in which the band has played and is featured upon the website. (Photos, aka evidence of performance showing it's not some 'claim' making it a necessary, a primary outside the band website, reliable, and and NOT self promotional). I must ask again, where in the world do you see the grounds to call any of the sources self promotional? They in no way promote the band. The use of the album pages (such as amazon link and other store link) where the album is sold was only added as a source to verify that the album is distributed on numerous markets and not 'burn it at home' album. If that use was seen as self promotional I guaranteed it was not the intention.

Because Cricket, yo obviously don't take the time to read before posting I'm reposting my original response to your bogus claim. "The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. " -Makk3232

Reply: For the record, I do not take deletion reviews lightly sir and am better known in the article rescue arena. I took an hour out of my day yesterday to review all sources provided and did some research on my own, frankly in hopes of saving it. When I took the time to look at the 'About' page at metal-archives.com I did note that they are "picky" about their submissions - but that doesn't matter. A band can still self-submit to the website, point being that the website does not write about a band on their own, they merely list the band's information - and that's all well and fine to get information about a band - but it does not make a band notable because they are listed on a self-submitted website. Same for Myspace, Facebook, ReverbNation, etc. Self-submitted - again - all certainly reliable sources for information - but not to prove notability. All other links provided are trivial mentions of this band. i.e. appearances, etc. Now if there were more extensive independent third-party write-ups of this band in magazines, ezines, newspapers, independent album reviews, and such, I would certainly reconsider. At this time I can only find one "somewhat" independent review at nocleansinging.com. And because anyone can release an album and distribute it, that does not automatically make anyone notable. But in all fairness, I have extended an invitation for a more specialized peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I understand you take them seriously as do I. I hope my defense of the article isn't being perceived as personal, my comments are only to back the relevance up. I do appreciate the extension of the article. I'm going to find some more sources on the internet I know are around and I'm going to update the article with the appropriate content. This is life or death to me, I hope you understand my firmness on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your position. I have fought to save many an article. Just in case, please do consider copying the current content from this article into a subpage so when more sources are found and/or this band becomes more notable, the article can be recreated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:MUSIC, they would need multiple album releases on a notable independent record label. They do not have this. The label itself is not independent of the band, making their sole album self-released (I note the label itself is up for deletion). Metal Archives has never been regarded as passing WP:RS, and even if it did would not constitute extensive coverage that would count towards notability, being a site that exists to catalogue every metal band to ever release an album. NoCleanSinging also fails WP:RS. That leaves nothing whatsoever to support the band's inclusion; the article is essentially here as publicity for a non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseRead the previous posts before making a statement. All things mentioned have been addressed, and a promise was made to add new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above posts have been read (before my original comment) and in fact have been responded to. A promise to find more sources is good, but actually needs to happen; in their absence the conclusion has to be to delete, per WP:MUSIC. Also, sign your posts. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Metal Archive, Spirit of Metal, NoCleanSinging, Myspace, iTunes, etc are not reliable sources. The claim of passing wp:music#7 is not supported by a reliable source. Selling music locally or on iTunes do not satisfy wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the previous delete !votes. Despite Makk's long-winded arguments, the band is still not notable.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP with 2 days left on a BLP prod. If someone wishes to source this article I'll be happy to restore it and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hemion

Timothy Hemion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. He's nothing more than a guy who opened his checkbook five times and paid notorious vanity press iUniverse to print five "books." As WP:SPS, they cannot be used to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Elizabeth Day

Victoria Elizabeth Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University)

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the fact that it is questionable whether this individual college library is actually notable, the article is entirely original research Travelbird (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Utterly non-notable building. Qworty (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of this individual building not proven within article, completely unsourced content with no inline citations. Shearonink (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shearonink, though some description of the building might be appropriate as a short entry in Wayne State University Buildings. Borkificator (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. It's as bad as most of the advertising guff that people try to put on here for their lawn maintenance or removals services. Apart from this, it's a university library with no reason shown why it is particularly notable. Some uni libraries are notable because of architecture or history - nothing given here to tell us if there is anything to tell. Peridon (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might not be OR - it could be copy&paste from a university or library guide. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie)

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film of questionable notability. The only sources provided are a forum and a promotional website. Travelbird (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reference have been added, please review before deletion to determin if this page can be saved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remy.range (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Youtube & forums are not reliable third party sources. Travelbird (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I find some evidence that Jose Escamilla might be notable enough to sustain an article (rather than the current redirect to Rod (optics)) but very little in reliable sources to sustain an article about this particular project. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Had proper sources been available, the article "could" have been re-titled The Battle of Los Angeles (documentary film) and its promotional tone addressed, but no... as currently there is simply not enough available for this to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF that could allow consideration of a stand-alone article. Not even IMDB has this one listed... not by itself nor on the director's entry.[17] All that can be found are pieces on UFO forums and on unreliable SPS.[18] What I can put together is that this documentary (is/will be) based upon the actual sourcable events covered in the article Battle of Los Angeles... and as documentaries go, it might earn notability... but WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New media journalism

New media journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to indicate that this term is used and is notable. All the citations are to sources within the Wikiproject. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It quotes a significant amount of text from another Wiki article. Also, no indication of notability in the article itself. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Mandsford 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana West (lactation consultant)

Diana West (lactation consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, promotional biography. Only claim to notability is as the author of a "national bestselling book" although no citation can be found to support that claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment 8 of the 18 references failed verification.TeapotgeorgeTalk 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment references added 1/18/11User:Robfalk12
  • Keep - The self-promotional tone needs to be rectified, but it seems like Ms. West is a widely published and recognized expert in her field and is likely to meet WP notability standards. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ms. West is widely regarded as an expert in the field of lactation. She has co-authored the 8th edition of the bible book of breastfeeding "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding", and is an expert in low milk supply and breastfeeding after breast surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.197.59 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — 70.53.197.59. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Notable in the field of lactation, specifically lactation for women who have had breast surgery or have low milk production. Needs work, but salvageable. The New Zealand Ministry of Health note that one of her books is considered 'essential reading' for women with breast reduction or augmentation issues. - ManicSpider (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is bucking the tide, perhaps, but I have doubts that the Keep proponents have actually done the research here. A Google News search for West turned up only a similarly named (but unrelated) Washington Post columnist [19]; there are zero hits for this West. In order for a subject to pass WP:AUTHOR, "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 ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I found exactly one such article, by a blogger whose column reviewed nine baby books and gave only two sentences to this one. Another criterion is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This can not be assumed; it must be proven by citing reliable sources which explicitly say so, something that the various sources propounded by keep proponents fail to do. If she passes the GNG, there must be multiple reliable sources discussing her (not the book for which she was not, in fact, the lead author, according to that one review) in "significant detail." Where are they, please?  Ravenswing  14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I've no doubt she speaks at conferences and whatnot, but this has not generated coverage about her. with respect to being the co-author of the 8th edition of an arguably notable book, I would argue that the book probably achieved whatever notability it has prior to the 8th edition. I note that she is not a co-author of the 7th edition. I am of course open to changing my !vote if somebody can present coverage in reliable sources, but I don't see that in the article, and can find none myself. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article provides not a single Reliable Source reference, and I could not find any at Google News or Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N, RS, V --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm assuming that N, RS, and V are meant to mean that notability, reliability sourcing and verifiabiility have been met. However, you need to explain how they are met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote.  Ravenswing  16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Beyond all of her other accomplishments, Diana West’s book Defining your Own Success: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery’’ is the definitive text on the subject for the worldwide lactation community. For that reason alone, I would expect her to have a page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP http://www.llli.org/books/bfar.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBNovDec01p222.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug08p27a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One Keep will do. Citing the book's publisher as a reliable source about the import of this book is hardly useful. (Please review guidelines on primary sources). There is no citation to state that Defining your Own Success... is the definitive text on the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no citation except the one I added yesterday and these ones... - ManicSpider (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which citation you are referring to, since you completely restructured the article making it impossible to see what particular citation you might have added. I don't see that any of the citations in the present article define West's text as the "definitive source" on the topic, and the link you added here merely indicates that the book received some reviews. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the article and click on the tab "View History" you can see all the individual edits, labelled with what I was doing. You can then look at those edits to see what changes I made. The sources were added after the restructure, and are at the top. However, for ease of reference I'm referring specifically to note 14. I admit it doesn't use the exact phrase "definitive source", but I think getting hung up on that phrase is unhelpful as it was a contribution by a participant in this discussion and not something we're required to look for under the guidelines. - ManicSpider (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not being a member of the subject website, I can't view the contents of that review. I'll assume good faith and stipulate that it is a positive review of the book. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused by your comment as I'm not a member of the site either, but I now see that my work has a subscription which is why I'm able to view it. I'll see if I can find a link that is actually useful for other people ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Diana west has made a huge impact on the lives of countless families with her books and her support of breastfeeding after breast reduction. I may be doing this all wrong, but I just want to support keeping this page up. It seems to me what needs to be defined in some way is the value of the information in her books; what she has written. There are lactation reference books available, and Ms. West's are part of that group. Many La Leche League Leaders keep the book Making More Milk for the mothers that show up to their support meetings. IMO what has made her books so valuable and worthy of a page here is the successful intervention they have effected in many struggling nursing dyads. Does the voice of the mother she helps need to get much louder to be heard? I do not claim to know Diane West, but I think Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinamoon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Rinamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: Do you happen to have any arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to offer?  Ravenswing  15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Hi, all. I’m Diana West, IBCLC, the person who is the subject of this discussion. Although I did not write the original page, I’m weighing in to address some of the questions about my credentials that have been raised because I probably know the answers best. I did not post earlier because I worried that it would be inappropriate to post on my own behalf, but I have been reassured that it is ok to do if I can provide solid information to address the issues that have been raised.

I can certainly understand your questions about my validity. You’ve never heard of me, probably because you haven’t breastfed personally or you don’t have kids who are breastfed. Or breastfeeding went easily for you or the women in your life. In my field of lactation, though, I’ve have become increasingly well-known over the last 15 years as a leading expert through my publications and lectures because my work has been helpful to breastfeeding women and professionals all over the world. I'm pretty down-to-earth and never make a big deal about it, so, as you can imagine, to have it come into doubt is really surreal.

Interestingly, the book that seems to be best establishing my credibility here is my least known, but it certainly was seminal. Defining Your Own Success: Breastfeeding after Breast Reduction Surgery was the first book to discuss this topic of breastfeeding after breast surgery and to encourage women to breastfeed even when they didn’t have full milk supplies. Although it is ten years old now, it is still the only and best resource on this topic. The review from the Journal of Human Lactation substantiating this fact has already been posted. In 2008, I co-authored with a plastic surgeon, Breastfeeding After Breast and Nipple Procedures, a more extensive clinical monograph for health care professionals addressing and expanding the topic. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[1] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. The accompanying website I created, Breastfeeding After Reduction, was recommended in the most recent edition of the popular What to Expect When You Are Expecting book.[2]

My last two books have been even more successful. The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk, by McGraw-Hill[3] is very highly regarded because it was a landmark book -- first ever on the topic of low milk supply and very helpful to many women and lactation professionals. It is ranked highly on Amazon. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[4] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. There are many blogs and websites raving about Making More Milk,[5] including People Magazine’s online blog.[6] It is recommended on About.com,[7] Suite 101,[8] and Blisstree.[9] This book has been referenced four times in the landmark 2010 lactation textbook, Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple by Nancy Mohrbacher.[10] [11] [12] [13] It was included as a top breastfeeding reference book in the 2009 edition of 25 Things Every Nursing Mother Needs to Know by Kathleen Huggins and Jan Ellen Brown, published by Harvard Common Press.[14]

My most recent book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, 8th edition, by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House,[15] is selling exceptionally well (regularly ranked under 1,000 on Amazon), not because it was already a well-known title from previous editions, but because my co-authors and I completely rewrote it from scratch, expanded it, and brought it into the 21st century with a contemporary, humorous tone. It is the first time it has been published by a true publishing house and it was the first time the authors were credited – which was done because our names are well-known it helps to sell the books. It was a national bestseller in July 2010 in USA Today, the first breastfeeding book to reach this pinnacle.[16] The reviews have been outstanding, clearly establishing it as a leading resource for breastfeeding mothers (Motherwear blog, July, 2010[17]; Breastfeeding Moms Unite blog[18]; Strocel blog[19]; iVillage[20]; and many more). It was listed as a must-have product for new mothers on Pregnancy 360, in Pregnancy Magazine’s website.[21] The professional review by the International Lactation Consultant Association is currently in press and will appear in the next issue.

To address the question about my not being lead author, I'm second only because we had three equal authors and drew straws to see who would be listed first -- it's definitely not that I contributed less that the first listed author. The article that we wrote, Tinker to Evers to Chance in Breastfeeding Today, January, 2010, discussed our writing process.[22]

The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk and the 8th edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding were pictured in a photo layout in Pregnancy & Newborn magazine in the August 2010 issue, picturing the most popular books for new mothers.[23]

I've written many articles for large-circulation magazines (Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Maximising Milk Production for Your New Baby, January, 2008; Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Surgery, November, 2005[24]; New Beginnings Magazine, Lead Article: How to Get Your Milk Supply Off to a Good Start, July-August, 2005 (co-authored with Lisa Marasco)[25]; Mothering Magazine, Lead Article: The Good News About Lactation After Breast Surgery, October-November, 2004[26]; New Beginnings: Making More Milk, April, 2009[27]; New Beginnings Magazine: Ten Nursing Pitfalls, May, 2009[28]; New Beginnings Magazine, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, Excerpt from Chapter Three: Birth!, October, 2009[29]; one of my articles was translated into German in Stillzei Magazine, August 2006; Leaven Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery, August-September, 2002. I am quoted by many others, including Fit Pregnancy.[30]

I am frequently interviewed on radio shows, including recently on Dr. Radio on August 10, 2010. A podcast was recorded of an interview of me for Motherwear’s Breastfeeding Blog[31] and The Vicky and Jen Radio Show.[32]

My publications have led to invitations to lecture all over the world at international conferences (Australia, Austria, Israel, Spain, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada), where only the most prominent leaders in the field are invited, plus hundreds of locations in the US. My visit to Malaysia was announced in their popular Pa & Ma magazine.[33]

I was the Director of Professional Development on the Board of Directors of the International Lactation Consultant Association[34] and the Monetary Investment for Lactation Consultant Certification because of my reputation, publications, and leadership abilities. I'm currently an editor for Clinical Lactation,[35] a peer-reviewed journal, which is no small feat.

I'm definitely not the same person as the Diana West who is the political commentator, but I'm pretty well-known in my own right among mothers and lactation professionals and am quite widely published as my credentials clearly validate.

I hope these citations have helped to clearly establish my credibility. If anything further is required, I will be pleased to provide it. In closing, please let me commend you all very highly on your integrity and critical analysis of the information on Wikipedia. I use it often, but have never seen the development side. I’m deeply impressed and will trust information I read on it even more now. Thank you for your time and devotion to this tremendous worldwide resource. Athena88 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Diana West, IBCLC[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/Feb%202009/1%20ILCA%20Burger%20Surgery.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/BFARinWTE.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=007159857X
  4. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/May%202009/3ILCA%20Twiggs%20MMM.pdf
  5. ^ http://makingmoremilk.com/reviews.shtml
  6. ^ http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/04/20/breastfeeding-mothers-guide-to-making-more-milk
  7. ^ http://pregnancy.about.com/od/breastfeedingproducts/gr/makingmoremilk.htm
  8. ^ www.suite101.com/content/new-research-on-how-to-make-more-breast-milk-a68863
  9. ^ http://blisstree.com/live/book-review-making-more-milk/
  10. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinBAMS.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-1.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-2.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-3.pdf
  14. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestin25Things.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345518446
  16. ^ http://www.llli.org/thewomanlyartofbreastfeeding
  17. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2010/07/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding-8th-edition.html
  18. ^ http://www.breastfeedingmomsunite.com/2010/11/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  19. ^ http://www.strocel.com/the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  20. ^ http://forums.ivillage.com/t5/Fodder-for-Debate-Newsstand/Book-Review-The-Womanly-Art-of-Breastfeeding-New-8th-edition/m-p/116173077
  21. ^ http://www.pregnancy360.com/you/11-nursing-must-haves
  22. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/56afe96d#/56afe96d/8
  23. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DWbooks.bmp
  24. ^ http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/surgery.html
  25. ^ http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug05p142.html
  26. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinMothering.pdf
  27. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/724fa0ad#/724fa0ad/44
  28. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/445c4023#/445c4023/40
  29. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/17ffcb6d#/17ffcb6d/6
  30. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinFitPreg.pdf
  31. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2008/05/motherwear-podc.html
  32. ^ http://vickyandjen.com/podcast_205.html
  33. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinPa&Ma.pdf
  34. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinJHL.pdf
  35. ^ http://media.clinicallactation.org/fall10/ClinicalLactation_FALL.pdf (see page 5)
Reply - Thanks for your input Diana. I'm looking forward to going through those new sources you provided. Just so you're sure, no-one is doubting your credibility as a lactation consultant, just your notability under the Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I am strongly of the belief that you fulfill WP:CREATIVE#1. Thanks and regards, - ManicSpider (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep: I've looked over some of the links Ms. West provides, and they satisfy me as to her standing as an authority in the field.  Ravenswing  22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ten seconds on Google alone provides numerous independent and verifiable sources. Maybe the article needs some sort of clean-up tag, but I am unconvinced that the article does not meet the standards of the guidelines.Agent 86 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just noticed that on the Discussion page TeapotGeorge asked for a list of my speaking engagements for this year and last. I added them. ManicSpider, thanks so much for your reassurance about this process. I'm fine with it, but it's so nice that you were so kind with a newcomer.  :)Athena88 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a little surprised this was held over rather than ruled a "Keep" or a "No Consensus." In review, it doesn't seem there is much if any third-party written biographical information out there, BUT it is equally clear that this is a widely published and acknowledged professional in her field. It's a bit of an offbeat pursuit, perhaps, but there does seem to be significant academic and professional work in the field of lactation consultation, including conferences (at which Ms. West has spoken) and journals (in which Ms. West has published). While not a clearcut slam-dunk sort of call, the position of Ms. West as a recognized expert in a legitimate field of academic and scientific endeavor, combined with her extensive publication history (one title being put to 8 editions) seems sufficient to me for an administrator to BOLDLY keep this article — tagged as necessary for improvement. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is a great idea when editing an article. It is often not such a great idea when closing a discussion. As you say there is not a "slam dunk" to keep the article. The hope is that a clearer consensus will develop in the additional week. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the now extensive evidence that she is widely cited as an expert in the field.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Skip Hollandsworth. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skip hollandsworth

Skip hollandsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete this article because it cannot be renamed using the move function, due to there already being a Skip Hollandsworth article. There are no links to this article because the surname "hollandsworth" isn't capitalized. The correct article Skip Hollandsworth is the article other pages are linked to, not this orphan. — Ztejasdurango · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was changed to redirect; non admin close. — Timneu22 · talk 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Life is a Zoo

My Life is a Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable show. No sources that indicate notability. No speedy reason for this. — Timneu22 · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The essay WP:Notability (media)#Programming says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience." Which this one is--the channel is being broadcast internationally. In addition to New York Times article recently added, a bit more coverage is popping up as this show comes to the air (but only the first of these is really substantive)[20][21][22][23]. Another alternative could be to merge/redirect this to DeYoung Family Zoo until such time as there is more extensive coverage of the show.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bateman

Alan Bateman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two things brought this AfD into being, one of them more important than the other. First, an editor who claims to be the subject of the article has been trying to gut it and nominate it for deletion, and that drew my attention. Second, though, the only notable position that the subject has had, as far as I can tell, was deputy mayor of a township of 15,000. I can't find anything else of interest, just a few things related to unsuccessful Republican runs for office. I don't see how this subject is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Also, if someone finds an RS saying that he served in the Colorado state legislature, I'll be happy to reconsider the close. T. Canens (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wilkinson (probate judge)

Robert Wilkinson (probate judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. [Edited to add: Additions made after creation of the AFD discussion indicate that the subject was a member of the Colorado State Legislature. However, this claim is made in membership records of the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, which is unreliable and fails verification. The State of Colorado does not support this claim.] Cind.amuse 02:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject was elected to the Colorado State Legislature as well as Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. I have added an additional reference, where he is referred to in a book titled "Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc." Italics are mine. John Milito (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The book on prominent persons in Kansas does not list the subject as a prominent person. See comments below. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the expansions made after this AFD was started — all state legislators pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The claim of the subject as state legislator is actually not supported by the State of Colorado. The sole source of this claim is in a Society membership record, which is neither reliable nor independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I certainly agree that state legislators meet the criteria found at WP:POLITICIAN. That said, the only source that indicates that the subject was a member of the legislature is a Society membership record stating "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," while no other information or sourcing for this statement is made. The State of Colorado does not provide any documentation or historical records to support this claim. The Society membership record is neither reliable nor independent and cannot be used to establish notability. The book on prominent persons in Kansas does not list the subject as a prominent person. This book includes genealogical listings of prominent individuals in the state of Kansas. The subject (Wilkinson) is merely listed in the profile of Robert Scott Dinsmore, M.D., as his father-in-law. In the record, Wilkinson is simply listed as "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans." None of the other references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in an event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources provided are not significant, reliable, or independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think we are being a bit hard on the sources here. The record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," is not a society membership record, it is published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, and the majority of the people noted in that book are not members. I concede the fact that the book on prominent persons in Kansas does not write about Wilkinson as the primary subject, most likely because he is not a native of the state of Kansas. It does tell a bit more that just his name, though: "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans. Judge Wilkinson was one of the early attorneys of Doniphan county, and served as probate judge of that county about twenty years. He was a native of Jacksonville, Ill., and came to Kansas soon after the Civil war. Mrs. Dinsmore was born at Black Hawk, Colo., where her parents had removed in the early sixties." WP:BIO states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" I would think that the author of a book about Kansas taking the time to mention the fact that this man was a founder of an organization 67 years earlier in Illinois points to notability. John Milito (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It is certainly not my desire to frustrate you, but rather to encourage compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Kansas record is merely a genealogical record of Robert Scott Dinsmore, presented by the Kansas State Historical Society. These family histories attempt to list nearly everyone of genealogical, rather than historical prominence. Mention in a genealogical source isn't a measure of notability at all, but solely a measure of usefulness for genealogical research. A genealogical reference does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, since notability is the least of the requirements for being included. Speaking as a professional historian and certified genealogist, I value genealogical records. I am very familiar with the KSHS. That said, genealogical records are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability on Wikipedia. Regarding the record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association? The listing is neither significant, reliable, or verifiable. Can you provide a verifiable source to support the claim that the subject was a member of the state legislature? I've searched and have been unable to verify the claim anywhere. Regards, Cind.amuse 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Founder of one of the earliest debating societies (and it is still going).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can you offer a policy based recommendation? Being a "founder of one of the earliest debating societies" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, notability for the subject has not been met. Thanks, Cind.amuse 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC):[reply]
  • Conditional delete because I was unable to find independent verification or any details about the claim that he served in the Colorado state legislature. If that is confirmed by a state record or other Reliable Source, I will change my opinion to Keep. Merely being one of the seven founders of a notable society does not make the individual separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a reliable source can be found to verify whether he served in the Colorado state legislature, the redirect can be undone. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless a RS can confirm he served on Colorado State Legislature - there is nothing on the web (other than this article) that says he did. NBeale (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbury Ridgely Henry

Greenbury Ridgely Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered five different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others, or in a genealogical record. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article now has a total of 7 sources, two of which are articles with this man as the main subject. John Milito (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline delete In addition to being one of the founders of the literary society (which does not qualify him as notable IMO), he was also one of the founders of the Iowa State Medical Society, and as such he rates a paragraph in an article about the history of medicine in Iowa [24] and in a book "The physicians and surgeons of the United States" [25]. This is not much documentation, but it may be all that can be expected given the time frame. However, I am not convinced that these achievements add up to personal notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge. Just about enough other stuff in WP:RS to be WP:N - but it's borderline. NBeale (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah Wright

Nehemiah Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list;another includes him in a genealogical record of his wife's family; and the third, as a catalog distributed by the Society, are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is not only a founder of a historically important society, but he was elected county physician of Sangamon County, Illinois. In addition to holding public office, I have added two additional independent biographical sources. John Milito (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. One reference is a paragraph, while others include him on a list among other names or again, in genealogical records. Being elected as county physician does not support notability. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User:John Milito does not present a convincing argument for keeping.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This man's article now draws from 11 sources. He has a passage devoted to his story in "History of Sangamon County, Illinois". John Milito (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. He was one of the seven founders of a society which qualifies as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, but that does not make him individually notable. Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources. He does rate a couple of paragraphs in a book about the history of his county, but IMO that does not add up to notability. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow. Go ahead and delete them all then. Every time I find a rule that supports my position I get three more thrown in my face. I have been to four libraries, and had to ask permission to get into archives. I have slowly built a large pile of sources that NOTE these people's lives. They are NOTED in several published works, several published by universities. But according to three random people these historical figures are not NOTABLE enough, and you are going to delete them, losing my work, losing the network of sources I've built, and making it impossible to improve them any further in order to meet this vague litany of rules. You aren't even going to at least MOVE all of it to the main page? Give me a break. John Milito (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Nehemiah Wright that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The notability of the Society as a whole does not transfer to every member, early or not. The founding of this Society is surely important to its members but it is was not an event of national consequence so grand that being somewhat associated with it confers automatic notability. If the "immortal seven" are not otherwise notable it may be wise to examine the wisdom of having articles for each of them as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Clinton Ross

Pike Clinton Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being an early member of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I listed him as "an early member" because the sources differ on his level of involvement in the founding of the society. This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. He did not "found" a society, he is merely "associated with the founding". He was apparently one of the original members [26], but the same reference states very clearly (page 5) that the Phi Alpha Literary Society had seven founders, "the Immortal Seven", and this subject is not one of them. The society may qualify as notable, but its founding is not a "highly significant" event, and he did not "play a large role" in its founding. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davidson Wilson

Robert Davidson Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Founder of one of the earliest debating societies.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can you offer a policy based recommendation? Being a "founder of one of the earliest debating societies" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, notability for the subject has not been met. Thanks, Cind.amuse 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. He was one of the seven founders of a society which qualifies as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, but that does not make him individually notable. Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, which I have not seen and cannot find. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Robert Davidson Wilson that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. BTW it should be noted that the nominator CindaMuse did her work with commendable care; of the seven founders, she only nominated four for deletion; the other three were left alone because they proved to be notable for other reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as above. No independent notability at all. NBeale (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu

Tachikawa-ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no references, no categories, claims to be some sort of tantric sex thing, and is overall full of what appears to be utter bullshit. I tagged it as db-a7, but apparently it's a religious/philosophical doctrine (which it isn't), and then I prodded it, but apparently it was a lazy prod and notability is easily verified, but isn't. I don't know if this is real or just some pseudo-religious bullshit that's being promoted here. I am fairly certain that in the current state of the article, it should not be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without any references to verify the facts, this can be considered little more than a hoax and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Someone can always recreate an article on the subject at a later date when or if reliable sourcing can be found. --DAJF (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of references on Google Books.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article by all means! But improve it and give documentation. The Japanese article on it is short but reliable -- please see -- and it lists reputable scholarly sources and links. The existence of the sect is established historical knowledge in Japan, though it was persecuted severely in the medieval and Edo periods. There are some reliable summaries in English based on Japanese scholarship. Charles3399 (PhD, Japanese Studies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles3399 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect to Ay-O. I'm pretty much going to move the entire article over, it may need to be trimmed and/or rewritten to fit well in its new home. Coverage of the internet meme should probably be added if sources can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger box

Finger box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was tagged as being a possible hoax, but a cursory check online suggests that it may be a legitimate thing after all (a Google test returned 31 million hits, including a Yahoo! Answers question). I think that this implies some notability, so I am opting for an afd rather than moving forward with the cds request. I have no opinion on the article's content, I'm just working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten since I made my original comment. Better now, but still lacks notability and is prime target for vandalism. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It states that it was "Updated Jan 08, 2011 at 01:59AM UTC by Don". The Internet Archive doesn't have this page stored, so I can't verify if there was an change made without the notification being applied. Possible vandalism isn't a valid deletion rationale. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the wikipedia article had been rewritten. You are right about vandalism not being a reason for deletion. Let me say it better: 1. I believe the article should be deleted because even the correct information does not meet notability. 2. If it is kept, the article should be protected due to the fact that the term "fingerbox" is primarily being used as a "lulzcow" currently. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or possibly merge to Ay-O. The artwork is not a hoax: the Hannah Higgins book cited in the article can be read at Google Books[28] and there are other books about Fluxus that also discuss the Finger Boxes.[29]. This is legit content, although perhaps it would fit just as well at the artist's article. I don't see the evidence in reliable sources for the hoax/meme's notability, but perhaps I am missing something.--Arxiloxos (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article on the artist. Yes it we should cover it, but while it remains an idiosyncratic style, it does not need a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge to the BLP subject. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per the above merges.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that this list does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one upfront club hits

List of number-one upfront club hits of 2008 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of number-one upfront club hits of 2009 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one upfront club hits of 2010 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete A less-than-notable music chart whose only reference in wikipedia is a brief mention in the UK Dance Chart article which says that this chart and others like it are "compiled by Music Week chart analyst Alan Jones using data from DJ returns in various UK dance clubs". I could not find any mention of these charts on the official site for the UK Charts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a list that has high influence on the UK BBC chart and BBC1 playlist. You can find mention of the upfront charts on lots of dance artists website. To obtain the complete top 40 data weekly, you can either buy the music week magazine or pay to get access via the music week website. A collection of all the number one so far is an original effort of many from wikipedia. Starbeta (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reference from the BBC or a reliable third-party source that verifies that influence? Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the official charts are notable, someone else's most likely are not. MLA (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Official" is the name of a company - The Official Charts Company - it only appears to have its own charts, not those compiled and published by other companies. Music Week is notable, but I can't find any non-trivial references to this chart (although it seems to be more notable than some OCC charts which Wikipedia has similar lists for). Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, appears to be some fakey-bake chart. Anyone can make a music chart. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fereshta Samah

Fereshta Samah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Found this with an alternate spelling (Freshta Sama) that I am fairly sure is the same person but the mention is much to trivial to approach the criteria of WP:BASIC. Perhaps there is significant coverage in Persian? J04n(talk page) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think I've made some progress on Persian sources. It appears that BBC Persia did a program (or an episode of a series) on her, which makes me think that someone who actually speaks the language will be able to find another source or two, looks like there's probably more (e.g., a passing ref [30] indicating a television appearance, and [31] ), but this would be a lot easier for someone who wasn't working through the vail of automated translation. Clearly I need to learn a few more languages.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindroute Incentive

Mindroute Incentive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Nonnotable software company/product. All ghits go to company's sites and marketing sites. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been speedied. Blatant "solution"-speak advertising. Conflict of interest is obvious from the text. No real claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cobb

Charles Cobb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, I suspect that this is a hoax. The article's creator only edit on Wikipedia was the creation of this article 5 years ago. His age does't match well with the text, born in 1963 and a music producer in the 1970s? J04n(talk page) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Nikolayevsky

AfDs for this article:
Valery Nikolayevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This articled had been reviewed yet and sent to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Valery Nikolayevsky. Then it was immediately recreated by the same User:Jahggy whose contribution makes it quite clear that this user is Mr. Nikolayevsky himself or somebody very close to him. As a sysop of Russian wiki I had deleted the same self-promotional material after detailed investigation of Russian-language sources so that I may insist that this author has absolutely no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse)

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article provides way too much detail on these fictional tribes than is appropriate for Wikipedia. It really belongs in a role-playing wiki. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 looks like a press release of a corporate partnership. Footnote 2 appears to be a one page reference in a big book. Footnote 3 looks like the same. (Mind you, I don't have these books, so can't be sure). The non-footnoted references are the game maker's own website and a fan webpage. Neither are considered reliable. I see two reliable sources, each with one trivial reference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"m pretty sure the game makers web page IS considered reliable, just not third party. Mathewignash (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. However, the third-party part is key here. Third party sources would establish a real world significance while primary sources do not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable spinout article to keep Werewolf: The Apocalypse from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably be trimmed, but while there's not the real-life significance of, say Vampire: the Masquerade's vampire clans, which have influenced the art and literature and even real lives of others, there is probably enough to warrant a MODEST article focusing on the real-life significance of the tribes, and a more brief synopsis. As it stands it needs a full re-write to be in line with the guidelines on writing about fiction. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I understand the concept of a spinoff but most of this is pointless WP:FANCRUFT. It could possibly be trimmed but the users who care about such articles usually aren't the type to trim. Since sources are not particularly significant, independent or reliable, I think it's best left to the White Wolf Wiki.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iroha (band)

Iroha (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What little info is sourced is mostly coatracking. One member claims notability with a charted single on the "indie charts" but I can't tell which chart they mean. Overall, the members may have a shred of notability but the band itself doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Indie Chart' noted in the article and references is the 'original' Indie Chart or 'Independent Chart' that was compiled purely from sales of independent records/retailers. The meaning has been usurped over the years but there was only ever one, original 'Indie Chart'. This is discussed in the literature referenced. The fact that all three members were either in notable bands (Final, Rumblefish - all with their own Wiki entry) or are currently still play in a notable band (Jesu - again with their own Wiki entry) makes the band notable as followers of said bands would agree Acrmcr (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge then delete. The band contains members of other notable bands, but not individually-notable members. The fact that this band exists and that members of those other bands are involved merits a mention in the articles about those bands, but there appears to be no claim to notability at present for Iroha, and most of the content here is about the members' previous bands. Perhaps when the album comes out there will be enough coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock's Backpages

Rock's Backpages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:WEB. The sources at the bottom, though from irrefutably reliable sources, amount to:

  • A placement in a totally arbitrary "Top 25" list.
  • A broken link.
  • A short article on the site's 5th anniversary.
  • One-sentence mention amongst a list of several other websites.
  • A couple paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly but this is still in the context of several other websites, not about this site exclusively.
  • Incidental coverage from the Guardian that's mostly an interview with the creators.

A further search on Google News turned up no further sourcing than this. So in short, the site appears to fail all three criteria of WP:WEB, to wit:

  1. The web coverage is limited almost entirely to "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", one-sentence mentions and/or material that is not independent (such as the aforementioned interview).
  2. It has not won any sort of award. Getting on some criterion-free "top 25 music websites" lists ≠ notability.
  3. It is not distributed or managed by a more notable website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to elaborate how you think this is sufficient? I just gave a rather elaborate rundown of how the coverage is not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly I disagree with you.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Paste article and Andy Farquarson's Guardian article both give significant coverage and they're both clearly reliable sources, the others give added weight to claims of encyclopedic merit.--Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) A Library Journal article is partially visible via Google Books ([32]).--Michig (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly is not "a couple". Quoting the subject of an article extensively in the course of eight paragraphs in The Guardian, dubbed "mostly an interview", is quite rightly not proscribed anywhere in WEB. Anarchangel (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Doe

Buster Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He isn't notable enough for his own page. Maybe it should be merged with the Phoenix Jones page to make one over the entire Rain City Superhero Movement. Kag427 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own to have an article for him. There can be an article for the Rain City Superhero Movement though, they getting coverage as a group, and members seen on a television interview together. Dream Focus 08:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't seen one single source or article solely over Buster Doe. He is simply mentioned along with Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't vote delete, since that's automatically assumed since you nominated it. I was stating above that I'm against a merge with Phoenix Jones, since Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own for his own article. Dream Focus 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Buster Doe has gotten absolutely NO coverage on his own. He is rarely referenced in the media, and in those rare occasions it is only as someone in addition to Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable about this person, might be fake--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Felts

Matt Felts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only self-published sources provided for notably: WP:Notability Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John David

John David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography, tagged as unsourced since August 2010, a monography which reads like an agent's blurb. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just because the article is tagged as unsourced does not mean it is unsourced. The bbc external link is clearly a reliable source for the information in the article and I have converted it into an inline citation. It is clear that John David has contributed significantly to the success of some notable music, several songs reaching the top 10 of UK popular music charts.Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comment above, BLP was not unreferenced, the citation just wasn't formatted correctly. John David clearly meets notability guidelines as one of the most successful Welsh songwriters who has in the past been influencial in the success of many high profile artists.Polyamorph (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have to agree with Polyamorph,.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Kasperavičius

Alexis Kasperavičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see why this article was ever created, or why this person is notable according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Ashershow1talk 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This person was associated with Kevin Mitnick and said to be his accomplice in many crimes. While this was initially substantiated through articles in Wired, The Register and 2600 magazine in addition to a specific mention as Mitnick's "best friend" in the afterward for The Art of Deception, the articles have since all been pulled from online resources by the publishers with no explanation. Since Kasperavicius has never been charged with a crime, these claims are tenuous at best. The only thing he's known for (which can be proven) is as a video game producer for Return Fire and others, and as co-author (with Mitnick) of the CSEPS anti-hacking course taught to banks and government agencies, as an "Ex-hacker" in a 2600 produced documentary, and as a consultant on hacking to a number of Hollywood films and TV series - which probably doesn't merit inclusion here. I'm going to change my answer to comment - I just don't know. Lexlex (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This afd was never placed in the log - so I'm going to do so and relist it. No comment on deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Thomas

James J. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER, the article as been recreated multiple times be a single contributor who may have a COI. ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: I do agree this article is mostly copied and pasted from another website, due to the large amount of external links, unreliable references to the IMDB and the fact that his filmography is typed in capital letters only. Though, this actor is notable and is the sole reason this article should be kept. I will try to get the article in question this up to wikipedia standards. Mr.Television (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have recently cleaned up the article to Wikipedia's standardMr.Television (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry. If the original entry for James J. Thomas wasn't inputted correctly to Wiki standards, that's my fault (as the interface can be incredibly challenging for some and the guidelines stringent). I do, however, completely appreciate the goal and relevance of said guidelines. However, I cannot imagine whether I put the term 'Filmography' in capital letters or not - should reflect James Thomas's validity. He is a working actor, has starred in a number of films and tv shows and as a friend - and I was only trying to help. As poorly inputted as someone may have found my submission to be, it was only because I didn't know the appropriate format (I still can't, for example, figure out how to add his photo). I also appreciate the work someone did assisting in cleaning the page up btw. I was only trying to help him out and would sincerely appreciate if someone did similar here for me. Sorry about this and I'll read through documentation to try and figure out how to better adhere to the wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbuzz (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. I was going to punch this "no consensus" but someone removed the AFD tag from the article. I restored it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I only see multiple minor roles in minor TV series and obscure movies. Fails WP:ENT.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television shows

AfDs for this article:
List of Philippine television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP who left the following message on the talk page:

There's already a category specifically for programs relating to TV programs shown in the Philippines, so why is there a need for an article about it?

If the reason behind this is to create an article listing programs that has no article in Wikipedia, then I think that's an invalid reason. If there is no article regarding a program, then one must be created for it.

A TV show article with a lengthy details enables others to verify that such program does or might have existed. As such, anyone could add a TV program to this article and clarify just by saying that "it's real" or that they've "seen the program," regardless of the fact that it might be fictitious.

Likewise, I've never heard of the program Alaska Mini-Programa even though it is listed in this list. It doesn't mean that such program did exist but there's also no proof of reference that such show exist. If such program does exist, more details can be added to it creating an article about it.

The listing of shows for certain TV stations are far more accurate and more specific that this listing. Editors of those articles were able to manage to create listing with references and/or create articles pertaining to a TV show. Though, I find it, at times, irksome when editors tend to remove citation requirements that I add whenever there is no verification attached to unlinked programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noting that as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates the existence of a category does not preclude a list, and vice versa. If the information is verifiable (I think it is in this case, there exist TV listings and rankings and magazines that can show WP:V and WP:N), discriminate (also true here, there are definitive and verifiable criterion for inclusion: a TV show, from the Philippines) and Notable (sources will determine that, it's hard to imagine an entire nation has no notable TV shows...), then it's a good list. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.29.47.55. I see no problems with this list that cannot be solved by editing, and the existence of a category is irrelevant. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy upgraded to PROD, PROD tag removed. Wikipedia is not a textbook. The tone and style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If this article is not entirely WP:OR, it is redundant with the pertinent sections of AC power. This almost reads like a translation of a thesis. I am unable to verify the sources given as I don't read any Cryllic. It's an impossible search term or link name. We also have an article Transmission line which is a better place to talk about distributed parameters. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom or Merge to an appropriate existing article on transmission line modelling. It is similar to materials already covered in related articles. The article is apparently based a Russian textbook on the topic, and is apparently not written by a fluent speaker of English, so it is difficult to follow. Someone who can read the Russian textbook might check to make sure it is not simply a copyvio. Edison (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Thatch

Nigel Thatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a particularly notable individual. His professional baseball career lasted seven games, his acting career, while existent, does not strike one as "article worthy" and the fact that he was traded for beer, though it is a good factoid, does not in itself merit an article. Alex (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One season in the independent leagues does not make his baseball career notable and his acting career seems to consist of bit parts on television shows.. not notable there either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProBoards

ProBoards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Lack of third party sources needed to establish notability, so assertion of "popularity" seems to be WP:OR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. The references in the actual article are poor, but I did find some fairly extensive coverage in books, including third party how-to and reference books[36][37][38] which would seem to pass the notability hurdle. This software and service is targeted at the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InvisionFree

AfDs for this article:
InvisionFree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Merge per Jamie. It is almost impossible to verify the notability of this software as Google turns up millions of hits, so finding reliable sources on this would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, in effect.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep does seem to have had some impact. Numerous third party site offering skins and how to guides indicate some degree of notability. --Salix (talk): 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zathyus Networks. I don't see any content that can be merged, but it's a possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZetaBoards

AfDs for this article:
ZetaBoards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Johann Gottfried Piefke. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piefke

Piefke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just an article on a word used in German. No indication of any special importance or interesting history. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Main claim to notability appears to be a false claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Terwilliger

Tom Terwilliger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May or may not not meet WP:N. Obviously requires cleanup, but that has nothing to do with the deletion itself. Levinge (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Many championships, certainly notable. I added a few references also. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep Many championships, certainly notable. I added a few references also. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, you cannot !vote twice. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to British Psychological Society. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge with British Psychological Society as "Consiousness and Experimental Psychology" consists mainly of content identifying it as a branch of the BPS, and would be better suited listed in the main article. Levinge (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See no apparent reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as a section of an organization without separate notability . It holds one conference a year, and worldCat shows no library but the British Library has a copy of its proceedings; it also publishes what it claims is a journal Consciousness and Experiential Psychology--but it has only 2 issues a year & is not even in Ulrich's, and Worldcat shows holdings only in the 3 English copyright libraries. Our general practice is to require much more than this for a section of a notable organisation. The section's own web page talks more about why the subject of consciousness is important, than why the section is. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems more appropriate than deletion. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. gscholar hits but as nominator says part of British Psychological Society. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM

One Thirty BPM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is a notable website. References are a link farm of content from the site. Stephen 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is recognized and used by Metacritic as a notable site. Conversely, Wikipedia uses Metacritic to determine what reviews are "professional". Therefore it would seem to me, One Thirty BPM is clearly a notable site. The article also lists that it's on Metacritic. So how is there no indication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIN815 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability, the site is now a featured publication on Metacritic. Is that not significant enough? Doesn't that fill criteria #1 of web notability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaloudis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Metacritic thing, which is pretty significant, the site also draws over 100,000 unique visitors a month and has been sourced by many prominent websites including Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, and NME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.213.242 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would seem to be enough to include One Thirty BPM on Wikipedia. Being listed on Metacritic is generally considered the watermark for what is a recognized and notable critical source, whether that be in print or on the internet. Deleting this wouldn't seem to be doing anything to help the website, nor the music community that relies on websites like this in this time when album sales and concert tickets sales continue to plummet. If the goal of Wikipedia is to make a comprehensive listing of what is notable in our culture, surely listing One Thirty BPM won't hurt that standing and will only help it, especially in the longterm, as the site is fast-growing and at the point to where it shouldn't be ignored. -Philip Cosores 1-26-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.102.30 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is a website that is recognised by many if not all of the independent record labels in the USA and UK. They respect and value their opinions and this is shown by the fact that the website receives promotional material from them for review puposes and for competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.145.205 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_26&oldid=410173413"