Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:04, 17 March 2011

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Fort

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

BLP of a non-notable subject.- camr ^nag 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person is a famous actor in Argentina. He's done many tv shows and deserves a wiki page. I have put legit information and resources.

He is mentioned in the following wikipedia pages:

Bailando por un Sueño 2010 (spanish page) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailando_por_un_Sue%C3%B1o_2010
Bailando por un sueño (Argentina) (spanish page) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailando_por_un_sue%C3%B1o_(Argentina)
El musical de tus sueños (spanish page) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_musical_de_tus_sue%C3%B1os

This entrepreneur and actor is a very important person in the Argentine Television History.

Also on the "Ricardo Fort" page there are plenty of actual and legit sources.--Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable person in the Argetine tv business.. we CAN NOT deny this !! He is always on tv and has been for the past 3 years...If you are argentine wikipidia editor/user than you should know this...If any doubts google him but this man deserves a page for his contributions on tv and comunity and it's NOT for a promotional article! I do not think he is an important person on the argentine tv history, I KNOW he is. --Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please, keep your argument in order. you're just repeating yourself. yes, i am from argentina. that's why i'm pointing out how ridiculous those phrases sound. we can turn this into an "i know he's important"-"i know he's not". very useful. do you actually live in argentina? i haven't seen him in a while...--camr ^nag 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I live in Argentina... Please quit acting like he's not famous cause he is.--Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you have no new insight, please refrain from personal attacks. mine is not a pose. again, if you have no new insights, then leave it to people that support your case with reasons.--camr ^nag 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: If Television Personalities like Angelina Pivarnick, Jennifer Farley, Michael Sorrentino, and Nicole Polizzi have thier own page than Ricardo Fort should have one too cause he is a Television Persoanlity in Argentina and a very famous one.--Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be an Argentine reality TV sensation, Donald Trump-meets-the-Kardashians or something... Lots of glossy, fluffy sources around, like THIS for example. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but that's a paparazzi site. this clearly does not meet notability guidelines [1]--camr ^nag 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's typically a low, low bar for notability of television personalities at Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but he doesn't even meet that "low bar"...--camr ^nag 14:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it has been deleted in the sp wikipedia 5 times for being a promotional article. in regards to what Scoobynaiterpaul123 argues: he's not an actor. he's a rich guy. "many tv shows" is subjective, and he's done none, but only appeared in a few. being mentioned in a wp article does not imply notability. all your arguments seem to be based on what you think is a "very important person (in the argentine television history)". you might as well dub him a pivotal personage in argentine history and we'll have to take your word on it. and the sources? 2 blogs, his own website, one wiki and 2 paparazzi sites are NOT legit sources.--camr ^nag 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:SOFIXIT. See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Are the people who propose deletions supposed to be casting votes? Carrite (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

an afd's not a poll, should know that by now...--camr ^nag 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is NOT the Spanish Wikipedia. We do not act based upon what editors on non-English Wikipedia's might or might not do. What we DO require here is verification of information and the subject meeting WP:GNG. Yes, the article requires major cleanup and better sourcing. Yes, the article can benefit from expansion. But both are addressable issues which do not require deletion of a notable topic before being done. So he's a rich guy who panders to his own needs and whims? Big deal. So is Donald Trump and I see no demand to delete the Trump article. Like with any topic, it's through the coverage in multiple reliable sources that someone may be determined to meet WP:BIO, and this fellow has plenty... even if much is in Argentinianan Spanish language sources.[2] Notability to Argentina is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't say you should follow what the sp wikipedia did, i said that because of the subjectivity it implies to say "he's a very important man in argentina". it was deleted b/c the consensus reached there was that he was not.

you base your argument in what this article could be, but never say how. paparazzi sites and mags would claim any small incident and character is important and/or famous, because that's what they make their livelihood on. the article requires better sourcing, but there is none. trump founded a company, among other things. this guy did no such thing, nor anything worth mentioning. in any case, since his granfather's the founder of the company, that would be notability by proxy.--camr ^nag 16:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern with current sourcing or content is addressable through regular editing. That is the how. That an earlier editor pointed to es.Wikipedia as a rationale for keep is perhaps the reason you pointed to it for delete, as is the reason I stated that we are not them. Notability is not dependent on how a rich person acquired their wealth, it is dependent rather in coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many years period. Your feeling the fellow never did anything worth mentioning, and that there are no sources, seems to run contrary to the over 1200 g-news results found in a cursory search,[3] and while I have not begun to go through them one by one, I have a very difficult time accepting your blanket call that all 1200 articles are unsuitable for the expansion and sourcing of the article. And since all news reporters earn their living through their reporting of the news, that is not how en.Wikipedia determines a news source to be unreliable. After my cursory search, yes, I do base my keep on WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:POTENTIAL showing the article as improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, have you gone through them one by one? have you already realized it's nothing but paparazzi gibberish? 100s "ricardo fort fought with virginia gallardo" and 300s "ricardo fort says he's not gay" don't seem to fit for this article. i'm not just "going down swingin". i ask you, please, to actually try and make an article from those sources. i guarantee you, you'll find it absolutely impossible.--camr ^nag 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just realized that while the nominator tagged the article for a speedy on March 7,[4] and while the speedy was decline on March 8,[5] resulting in this AFD being filed, I see that the article itself was never tagged with the AFD template.[6] I will rectify this error and make the proper notifications. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) on behalf of Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 17 March 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 List of episodes of Pinky Dinky Doo and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky's Happy Doo Year

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

Non-notable television episode. The article is entirely unreferenced, and fails to explain why the episode is notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. --Crazy runner (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir to List of episodes of Pinky Dinky Doo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. LK (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have an idea - Delete. No notability to be found. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the "Random article" button still brings up a lot of old articles from Wikipedia's TV Guide days, there are very few individual episodes of a TV show that are notable enough for their own page. The series is notable, and an article about a particular season's worth of episodes of a show is still considered OK. Mandsford 14:54, 25 March 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 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilda Reka

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

This article is about a beauty pageant title holder for which I am unable to find any sources to satisfy verifiability. The article states that she represented Albania at Miss Universe 1994. Our own wikipedia article doe not list any entrant from Albania. I've used pageantopolis for looking up other beauty contestants, and it turns out the Wikipedia article is sourced from there. It, of course, doesn't list any entrant from Albania. Searches on google news, and books turn up no results, and web search results fail to find any reliable sources. There is also a claim for 3rd runner up at Miss Globe in 2001. This may not be the same competition as I gather that there are, or have been mutliple contests that have used this name. However, her name doesn't appear as an entrant in that list, and I can find not other sourcing for any Miss Globe that has her as an entrant. The year of competition for Miss Europe is unspecified but I found this which shows a Lida (not Ilda) Reka competing for Albania. I conducted additional searches using "Lida Reka" but could find no sources using that name either. She would meet notability as a pageant title holder if there were sources to verify it, but there are none. Whpq (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's an interview [7] in Albanian with a current Miss Albania who mentions an Ilda Reka as one of her favorite past Miss World. At the bottom of this page there's an article whose title translates "Reka recovered, with more light than top-models", By Violeta Murad - Top Ilda Reka model comes in Albania for another show. Again in the activity of Grabockes..., but I have no idea how to actually get to the rest of the article content without dropping $25. The first doesn't quite seem reliable enough, the second doesn't appear to source the claim that would provide notability. Humph. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is the first beauty pageant title holder article I have come across that I am unable to dig up any sources for. I just checked another beauy pageant fan site and found this feature article abut the 1994 Miss Universe pageant. It also shows no entry from Albania. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog.com pound for pound

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

Wikipedia is not a place for subjective rankings made by a single niche website. MMA PFP rankings are highly contentious, and meaningless from a practical point of view since these fighters rarely fight each other. There is no authoritative PFP list, so there should not be a page for any of them. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, we absolutely should not have an article for one specific site's pound for pound list. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Seems like indiscriminate information to me, and I don't think we can consider one website the main authority in this regard without sourcing indicating that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true that pound for pound rankings are meaningless and completely subjective. However, the real reason this article should be deleted is that this article gives no reason why its subject is notable and has no independent sources that might show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't see why this list is anymore worthy of deletion than boxing's Ring Magazine pound for pound list, Sherdog is the largest & longest running MMA site in the world, they are also the MMA content partner for ESPN. Its fight finder is used to link to fighter records on every mixed martial artist's page on wikipedia. If notability is a problem I can find plenty of sources. --Phospheros (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Trough prairie butterfly

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

Article name does not refer to any species of butterfly. Four butterfly species are mentioned in the article. I have removed three of them to their own articles, the fourth already has an existing article. The section of the article relating to conservation duplicates the many existing articles on conservation. With the three butterfly species removed to their own articles, this article no longer serves any purpose and was rather dubious as to the subject in any event. The butterflies should have been listed in separate articles to begin with. Delete. Safiel (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved the article to the title Puget Trough prairie butterflies, since it deals (or dealt) with the status of several unrelated species of prairy butterflies in the Puget Trough. --Lambiam 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you moved information from this article to form three other ones, we can't simply delete this, as we must preserve the article history. It should instead be turned into a redirect, but I have no idea of pointing to what target. Perhaps it should also be renamed to reflect the actual contents rather than the non-existant species. LadyofShalott 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are the three articles I created:

I don't think redirection can be used simply because the Article Title Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a plausible redirect to anything. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After giving it some further thought, I am considering moving this article to Butterfly and moth conservation and deleting the information specific to the four butterflies and then marking the original article name for speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. Reconsidering what I said earlier about duplicating conservation articles, I see there is not much specific to butterfly and moth conservation, so will strike my original comment. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Butterfly and moth conservation. Then, Speedy Delete Puget Trough prairie butterfly as an implausible redirect. Safiel (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a common name therefore no redir is needed. The rest of the article is not easily salvaged and is not suitable for a Butterfly and moth conservation article. If the latter article were to be written it will need more than what is in the article up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Second google hit on the term is this AfD. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I am waffling here. After yet more reconsideration and talking to some of the butterfly folks, I will go back to my original stance of delete. It has been pointed out that the material in the article is neither sufficient quantity or quality to created the proposed new article, with which I have to agree. Final answer. I hope. Safiel (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 22:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oligarchologist

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

Unnotable field of study. Phearson (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Needs to be improved as well. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. There appears to be exactly one Google Book hit mentioning the word "oligarchology". Surprisingly, only 7 Google hits. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neololgism. I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't a word coined in a bar last evening, actually... Carrite (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is most definitely notable. There are numerous authors and broadcasters that can be considered as oligarchologists (Alex Jones, David Icke, Alan Watt etc.) The article needs to be expanded. Deleting the article will not further this goal and will diminish wikipedia as a result. Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please supply some reliable sources that verify that it meets the notability criterion. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. I could find exactly one news source mentioning oligarchology. That is not enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all very well to say that various people "can be considered as" oligarchologists; what is needed is evidence of use and discussion of the term to satisfy WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takatsukasa Naotake

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

Claim to fame is being a Nippon Electric Corporation (NEC) engineer Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article claims that the subject was an entrepreneur, but gives no indication of any entrepreneurial activities. Joining a large, long-established, corporation is pretty well the opposite of entrepreneurship. I can't make much sense of the Japanese article using machine translation, but maybe that sheds more light on what notability is being claimed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability claim is barely existent, no where near passing WP:BLP standards. Article is years old, and still hasn't ever had a serious claim, referenced or not. Monty₈₄₅ 04:07, 24 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL Field Goal

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable phone game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:10, 23 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Racing

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lovely work but not a notable phone game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only article that links to this one is Wicked Witch Software. WuhWuzDat 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plausible search term. See "Purposes of redirects" at WP:REDIRECT. "Quantity of wikilinks" is not one of them. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Rally 2

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lovely work but not a notable phone game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only article that links to this one is Wicked Witch Software. WuhWuzDat 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Rally

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough info. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only articles that link to this one are Wicked Witch Software and another game from the same developer (also up for AfD). WuhWuzDat 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Assault

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lovely work but not notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL SuperPass

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lovely work but not notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 23 March 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Mader

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

This was speedily deleted. I felt that discussion at AFD was appropriate given the article's long history and the subject's award nomination. Michig (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. If keeped should be better presented. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage in Google News. For example, Monsters & Critics called him an "acclaimed director/visual artist". Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the fact that the article was created for promotional purposes, none of the sources are about the subject and most are namechecks only. Award nominations are one of those things that indicates sources might be available, but none are cited. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE. Article is in need of cleanup and use of available sources, and both he AND his works have received coverage.[8][9][10][11][12] Addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are definitely scholarly, independent sources, covering more than just a mention of his name. Many sources--I'm looking at the ones presented by User:MichaelQSchmidt--talk about the importance and impact his style of film making has had on the industry. This article even has several sources in it already supporting his notability, though there is no doubt it needs to be cleaned up, and reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Arador (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL Arcade

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:13, 23 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Handball

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only article that links to this one is Wicked Witch Software. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:13, 23 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL GoalKick

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only article that links to this one is Wicked Witch Software. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florentin Smarandache

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

It's not entirely clear whether Smarandache passes the WP:PROF criteria (the first AfD was somewhat divided); he may because of the number of things (such as functions and numbers) named after him. But the main point is that there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources (independent of the subject) that talk about Smarandache himself. Without these sources, this article can't satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it should probably be deleted. Mlm42 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject of this article is a very prolific author. A search shows over 10 pages of results where the subject is the author. I did not find any significant other sources mentioning him. If you use another author mentioned on WP as a guide there are some authors of less know work left alone. It in itself is not a guide but there is a fine line here with regard to notability and this candidate for deletion. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, those google results are not about the author, but rather publications by the author. The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any independent sources where Smarandache is the subject. Mlm42 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchall (talk • contribs) [reply]

Weak Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he's known less as an impactful mathematician than as a relentless self-promoter, but I think there's enough about him to have an article. See for instance [13] [14], a 55-page booklet about his work (though perhaps its publisher is not independent of the subject). And I don't really buy the nominator's arguments, anyway: researchers are known for their research, just as in most cases politicians are known for their political office and musicians are known for their music. It should be perfectly valid to have an article that summarizes the researcher's research contributions while saying little about their private life. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think point 5 in WP:SELFPUB specifically addresses this kind of case. My understanding is that we need sources that are independent of the subject. Mlm42 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak delete. The citation counts in Google scholar are in the range for a pass of WP:PROF#C1, there is nontrivial coverage of him in sources, and his name is widely known. Because of all that, I'd like us to have a properly neutral article about him, one that accurately describes what mainstream mathematics thinks of his work. However, it seems particularly difficult to find sources that are actually independent of the subject and that say something nontrivial about him. Given his self-promotion I don't want to rely on non-independent sources for anything in the article — that would probably violate WP:NPOV — but without them what is there to say about him? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article certainly has a colorful editing history, and some of the comments at the first AfD are laugh-out-loud funny, but I don't see that anything has changed since then to make me think that "keep" result wasn't the right one. He certainly seems to be notable based on the evidence. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we do generally allow some autobiographical information to be included in biographical articles, and in this case it is appropriately identified as such in the text. For what it's worth (which may be very little in this case), Google News does turn up a few sources that appear to be "about" him[15]: they're in Romanian, which I don't know, and they make even less sense to me after being run through the Google translator into English.[16][17][18] That seems to be par for the course with respect to this subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein. Smarandache hasn't done much of importance, but he is well-known. On the other hand, I concur with the nominator on all the factual points mentioned in this AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola. Additionally, I have concerns about our ability to write an article that is verifiable and independent of the subject. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. What do the numbers say? GS cites are 498, 149, 74, 72, 61 .... with h index of 20. Love it or hate it a clear keep on WP:Prof#C1. Lots of laughs in the article too! (But see below) Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. In this case, the h-index is a poor indicator of actual influence. For instance, the Field's medalist Elon Lindenstrauss only has an h-index of about 17, but is orders of magnitude more influential as a mathematician. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agricola's comment below completely undercuts the reliability of GS cites for determining notability per WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree completely with David Eppstein's arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub until sources can be found. While it seems likely that we should have an article about this guy, the article will look nothing like the one we currently have. It should be based on sources that are independent of the subject. The current article runs afoul of a number of policies, at the very least: (1) the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to the subject's fringe mathematical theories, (2) the WP:SPS portion of the verifiability policy, by including self-published self-promoting sources, (3) WP:OR, for instance by linking to the subject's personal site, the article concludes that he is a playwright. I suggest stubbing the article, and rewriting it from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete per nom and Agricola's elaboration. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading both the article and all of the above, I assumed I would probably side with the "keep" camp, but in looking a little deeper, I've found two problematic pieces of information. First, the gravity and impact of his work claimed (goes to WP:PROF #1) in the article is contravened by WoS – which is squarely where we would expect such impact to show up for someone working in mathematics and physics. For example, the article speaks of the "Smarandache constant", "Generalized Smarandache Palindrome", the "Smarandache hypothesis" in theoretical physics, etc. WoS shows only 3 papers, having citations of 1, 0, 0: h-index = 1. That figure is quite literally "next to nothing" in terms of impact. It is true that there are quite a few citations in GS, although a large fraction seem to be self-citations and citations from other unpublished works. (I went back to first AfD, which also points this out.) I'll admit that one might argue impact on the GS findings, but my feeling is that self and unpublished cites are not what is conventionally meant by that term. Smarandache seems to be somewhat on the fringe and he may have some fame therefrom, but I don't not believe that translates to notability per se...which brings us to my second objection. He is the editor of journals, which would normally satisfy WP:PROF #8, but these journals are neither major, nor well-established, as the policy requires. The International Journal of Applied Mathematics & Statistics is a relatively new journal and its web page indicates it is not indexed by WoS. Progress in Physics is an "alternative" journal that seems to publish unrefereed, often "crank" articles, see e.g. this. (Incidentally, the Progress in Physics article has no real sources, dead links, etc. – perhaps should be considered for deletion itself.) I think the conclusion that I come away with is that David's observation that Mr Smarandache is a relentless self-promoter is being kind. There's plenty of observation above and in the first AfD regarding his promotional prowess, in fact, this article was probably started by him (Geolocate shows the anon creator account to be from his institution.) I would like to respectfully propose that he is so good at this that even some of the usually and rightfully skeptics among us have been snowed. In the end, the only legit argument for "keep" is that he is, in some sense, famous, but WP:FAME suggests we should be dubious. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum. This page gives some specific examples of the trivialities that Smarandache promotes as his mathematical research – this is entirely consistent with absence of indicated impact in WoS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Agricola, excellent research, cant add anything to that other than some concerns about refspam in the article. Seems to be going for quantiy over quality RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some contributors to this debate do not appear have a good understanding of the concept of notability. Notability means being noted, and if somebody has been noted they are therefore notable by Wikipedia standards. These academic AfD pages do not have the function of an academic promotions committee set up to determine who has done "good" or "bad" mathematics and reward people accordingly. It may be that the subject of the article is a master of self-promotion but, if so, he is a successful one. With a GS h index of 20 he has around 1000 citations to his work and not all of those are by himself. By the standards applied on these pages he passes WP:Prof#C1 easily and his other accomplishments contribute to W:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I beg to differ. WP:Prof#C1 states

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

However, a numerical preponderance of Google scholar ~~hits~~ citations from questionable sources does not translate into "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline" (from WP:PROF: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.") As already observed, most of the citations to his work are from unpublished or otherwise questionable sources. His WoS h-index gives a much more accurate assessment of this individual's impact in mathematics: effectively nil. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. I was referring to citations not hits. Search on GS for "author:Florentin Smarandache" and you will find 864 hits. This extraordinarily large number refers to publications authored by Smarandache. In terms of establishing notability these hits are almost worthless. However, under each hit you will find "Cited by xx" where xx is the number of cites. The first hit shows 499 cites. Click on the "Cited by" and you will find who did the citing. Most of these cites are not self-cites by Smarandache. These are the data that are used to obtain the citation h index for GS. Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. Those with an h index of less than 10 rarely pass. There is no formal policy on this; it is just the way that decisions of editors have evolved over the past few years. Standards of notability for academics and scholars in the English Wikipedia are much higher than for some other subjects; garage bands, musicians or athletes sometime get by with only a handful of references. The acceptable number of citations also varies by subject. It is not the job of editors of these pages to determine whether a subject's views are correct or incorrect, good or evil. We only determine if they are notable from having been noted, and in this case it is clear that the subject has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were inattentive in reading my post. Contrary to your overall tone WP:PROF#C1 is not some facile numerical criterion on notability, hence my reason for quoting the policy. Instead, the policy specifically demands that the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. How many of these citations indexed by Google scholar are in reliable sources independent of the subject? Combing through the results (admittedly I have not looked at several hundred citations), most seem to be from vanity publishers and otherwise very questionable sources that we would not consider to be reliable sources. These are not "citations in the scientific literature"; these are self-published citations in vanity presses. But if it were true that the numbers go so far as to establish notability as you seem to feel, then his WoS index should also be high. But it is almost nonexistent. Since google scholar indexes many publications we would not consider reliable, in this case we should trust the assessment of WoS, particularly given the subject's penchant for voluminous self-publication. So I motion that the GS cites are irrelevant, unless a substantial number of these can be demonstrated to be reliable indicators of notability. I believe the guideline already makes clear that h-index should only be used cautiously (in this case, there is good reason for being even more cautious than usual), and it already discusses the unreliability of Google scholar's h-index (which in this case is especially unreliable). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the accusations of sockpuppetry in the PlanetMath piece, and the ease of faking up high citation counts in Google scholar, I'm not sure that we should take the high numbers in Google scholar completely at face value without other evidence. In addition, this week Google scholar seems to have made a change that causes outgoing citations as well as incoming citations to be counted, making their counts useless for assessing notability. Looking at the actual citations listed by Google for his highest cited work, many are in the "Smarandache notions journal" (i.e. not independent of the subject); of the first ten citations it lists, the only one I really trust is Sloane's, and that one mentions the subject only trivially. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Eppstein for revealing how readily Google Scholar can be subverted. A closer look at the Smarandache citations does indeed raise questions about their validity. I still support a keep in view of his heroic efforts at self-promotion, that needs to be put in the article. If we have an article about William McGonagal we can have an article about Smarandache. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Agricola Phiwum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but what is the Telesio Galilei Academy of Science Award? According to this page, he won it in 2010. Phiwum (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really add anything to what David Eppstein and Agricola44 said, except that you should read [19] (PlanetMath), which probably qualifies as a BLP attack page, but WP:IAR. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that PlanetMath hit piece is relevant here, wouldn't it provide further evidence of his notability, even if only as a "doofus"? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to base an article on that? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. I won't open the can of worms about Smarandache's PROF notability, but just looking over the Romanian echoes of his contribution to literature, I get the sense that the man is very self-promotional, but much neglected by mainstream criticism. He only gets a handful of small-scale reviews in mainstream literary journals. For instance this article, in the Writers' Union of Romania România Literară, briefly mentions him as "Autorul (matematician român stabilit în SUA) pretinde că a creat un nou curent literar, "paradoxismul", pe care îl menţionează entuziast, ca o mare realizare, în cv-ul său. Are şi numeroşi adepţi devotaţi, situaţi, ca şi el, în afara adevăratei literaturi. Poeziile din recentul volum sunt (ca şi cele din volumele anterioare) rezultatul unei gimnastici lingvistice hazardate. Lipsit de bun-gust, Florentin Smarandache vrea să fie original, dar nu reuşeşte decât să fie strident, vrea să epateze, dar nu reuşeşte decât să provoace cititorului (cultivat) un zâmbet ironic [...]. Singurele momente în care atinge poezia sunt acelea în care îl imită pe Nichita Stănescu [...]" That is: "The author (a Romanian mathematician living in the USA) claims to have created a new literary current, 'paradoxism', which he mentions with enthusiasm, like some sort of great achievement, in his CV. He also has many devoted followers, located, just as he is, outside the realm of real literature. The poems of his recent volume are (like those of his earlier volumes) the result of risky verbal gymnastics. Lacking in good taste, Florentin Smarandache wants to be original, but only manages to be glaring, wants to shock, but only manages to raise an ironic smile from the (cultivated) reader [...]. The only moments where he touches on real poetry are those where he imitates Nichita Stănescu [...]" A more in-depth analysis in Observator Cultural, article by Paul Cernat, also reserves some brutal criticism for Smarandache and his pals: "graphomaniacs", "nonsense", "fauna" etc. are some of the epithets Cernat uses in reference to these guys. Cernat also briefly reviews Smarandache's memoirs, noting that the man has "a modest literary talent" and "an overinflated ego", and that, although he has good "Oltenian humor", his pages are "sordid". And so on. Now, I'm tired of searching for more - this is the type of reviews FS gets, and will probably get until the day he gives up on writing. Rest assured, there's not much more than that around. Maybe these validate keeping the article, but it would have to lean on the negative side, since there's nobody that thinks much of FS other than himself & comp. WP:BLP in mind, it's probably better to invite the article out. Dahn (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth research. FWIW, graphomania. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Dahn's information. Notable is not equal to meritorious. A low quality writer whose work gets 3rd party published RS reviews is notable, and the reviews given above are sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily object to that interpretation (though note that what I quoted is virtually all of the exposure that FS got in such sources!). The problem here is that, if built from the actual mentions that are quotable, such as the ones I quoted above, the article would become very negative to FS, overwhelmingly so. Three reasons why that is a problem: 1) WP:BLP concerns; 2) keeping the article on the basis of negative reviews would automatically imply the exposure of FS' own vanity press - for "reciprocity", and simply because it's okay to quote self-published sources "in articles about themselves"; 3) I'd wager we'd be facing a continuous edit war with various single-purpose accounts trying to remove the "negative" information, and in the process reducing this article to what it already is. All that because a couple of mentions in the non-vanity press? I for one don't think that's what wikipedia should do/what wikipedia was meant for. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 24 March 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 Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Arcade

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

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable game. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Marasmusine (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That's pointless, as the only article that links to this one is Wicked Witch Software. WuhWuzDat 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Sylver

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

I have severe doubts that a proper balance can ever be struck here between positive and negative information, so it's probably simpler to just delete it outright -- especially since Sylver seems to show up regularly under different accounts to try to add uncited peacock material and remove unfavorable material. I'm also not sure that the sourcing we have establishes true notability, as opposed to temporary notoriety. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability seems pretty well-established, if not necessarily as a hypnotist, then as a fairly prominent huckster. The fact that the subject of the article keeps showing up to try to scrub evidence of his misdoings seems to me an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it, which would be letting him win. There doesn't seem to be any controversy other than Marshall Sylver versus The Rest Of The World here. -- Theodolite ➹ 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For many of the reasons Theodolite stated. Though a low-level fraudster, Sylver is notable enough. Also, as Sylver has flooded the web with propaganda in an attempt to make sure his Wikipedia page isn't returned too high on a Google search, the article page might actually be a public service. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — LongLiveReagan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he passes notability, even if he is a bit weak there. The fact that there can be balance concerns further supports notability, and should not be used as a criteria to support deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appweb

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

Unreferenced article about back-office software, yet another web server. Contested proposed deletion. Google News results yield mostly routine press releases about versions and updates; the only independent coverage is an interview with the proprietor[20] from a Linux products spamblog.[21] No showing that this has the kind of significant effect on technology, history, and culture that makes for long term historical notability. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination. As a side note, I was the editor who chose to challenge the PROD. I chose to do so as a result of a (very) hotly contested AfD discussion currently taking place regarding a similar server article, in the interest of being fair to the author of that article and not wanting to open a bigger "can of worms" than has already been created through the course of that discussion. Strikerforce (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-independent reliable sources listed. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 24 March 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. This has dragged on long enough. I don't think any of the offered sources amount to much more than incidental mentions, but the only other delete !vote really doesn't add to this either. So I'm calling it off. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (Webserver)

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

Non-notable back-office software; contested proposed deletion. Google News searches find nothing that looks like significant coverage in reliable sources.[22][23], only incidental mentions. Books[24] and Scholar[25] are equally unavailing, although Scholar locates a Spanish white paper on the software that was apparently prepared for a Linux user group in Andalusia[26]. This user group article is apparently by the software's author, and as such not independent, whether this may be a reliable source or not. The current article is referenced only to internal sites. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

weak keep Appears to meet notability guidelines, if barely. While I'm not finding coverage of this topic where it is the focus of the coverage, I am finding mentions in linux administration books (Fedora 11 Administration and Search Engine Optimization for Dummies). --RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw those books hits; I didn't think they were worth mentioning, because both of them simply list the name as part of a list of also-ran web servers; these listings were way too shallow to look significant. If anything, the books confirm that this is a minor league player. Search Engine Optimization for Dummies lists this among "a bunch of little guys". (And at Wikipedia, "search engine optimization" is another word for Satan and his imps.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I agree with RadioFan, and I also found mention of it in this book. --Hamitr (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason why the "fellow editors" have added Cherokee is to justity a cover-up: A Cherokee webserver Troll has been identified as (at least one of) the "fellow editor" working behind the scene to eradicate G-WAN, after an independent comparative benchmark largely turned in G-WAN's favor. PLEASE HELP TO MAKE THIS (CHEROKEE WEBSERVER TROLL) EDITORIAL WAR AGAINST G-WAN CEASE.— Bugapi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment for closer: above user has been blocked for vandalism and 3RR issues, as well as sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. —Tom Morris (talk)
- Additional comment for closer: above user has a conflict of interest.--RadioFan (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I started the process on this article after it was called to my attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server) as another unreferenced article about a web server. I did want to make it clear to User:Bugapi that his article was not being singled out for different treatment, and that any unreferenced article about a non-notable subject is potentially subject to deletion. (And FWIW, all of the book mentions pointed out above would appear to be canonical examples of "incidental coverage", and I don't think they make a case for notability.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have moved the page to Cherokee (webserver). OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've heard of this webserver before, however the independent reliable sourcing is exceedingly weak. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 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 Beautiful Soul. Big Dom 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Life (Jesse McCartney song)

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

Not a notable song. Fixer23 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beautiful Soul. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album's article. Strikerforce (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album per WP:NSONGS. No need for an AfD. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 24 March 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn and no Delete !votes - per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wishna

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

Delete as hopeless public relations/propaganda. Numerous updates by user purporting to be subject. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- nomination withdrawn (see below). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current form is poor but not hopeless. A Google News search confirms that Wishna is notable. Every claim in the article needs to be referenced to a reliable source or removed, but that seems possible. Cullen328 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator was notified of this AFD. If he/she wishes to fix it, fine. That is his or her responsibility. I really cannot do so at this time, my hands are full. If no one wants make the positive edits needed to wikify the article then it should go. Have you seen all the banners posted (not by me, btw)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started to gather reliable sources in my sandbox and I will fix up the article. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist, not for articles that need work. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but an article that is almost wholly self-promotional, with edits apparently made by the subject is a horse of a different color, IMO. Anyway, good luck with your enterprise. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've completely rewritten the article, eliminated the puffery, and cited all claims to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 has done a masterful job. The article appears to be in accord with WP:BLP. I withdraw the nomination. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boolos

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

No evidence of notability. The references don't seem to refer here. No inward links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a collective of performance and conceptual artists founded and based in Toulouse, France. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.

Delete Not Notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Supposed to be an art movement. They throw parties and built a raft out of garbage. No indication that these achievements, if true, will be remembered for their historic or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPX (company)

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

Nominated for deletion as (1) tagged for improved references since 2008 and none supplied. (2) Largely the product of a single editor who has not edited any other article [27]. (3) Appears to be solely a promotional piece. (4) Doesn't meet notability criteria WP:ORG as there is only trivial or incidental coverage of the company by secondary sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another software and service company. No indication that this business or its products, whatever they are, have had significant effects on technology, history, or culture of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per submitter arguments above. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Keep The company's founder was named one of the "The 10 Most Influential People in CRM" and there is a reference to an article supporting that. The company was founded in 1983 - no other configure-price-quote company existed before that time. The article is a story of how two men created a software company, with little investment, that has since grown to have users around the world. It is also a story about how a software company needs to change as technology changes in order to grow.Zappy01 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the admin who closes the AFD. Zappy01's sole work on the project is this article see [28]. And I note from his talk page, this article was nominated for CSD when it was created. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Sure, the article as it exists reads as a PR piece, but that doesn't detract from the notability of the subject. A quick read of related Google links shows the company more or less invented the CPQ space. From what I read, they recently underwent a name change and notability based on outside sources should also include coverage under the names Firepond and Clear With Computers (CWC), for which I'm turning up LOTS of hits in a very cursory Google search. Is #2 in the original nom even a valid argument? I don't think so; a dearth of qualified editors hardly means a subject is non-notable. #1 is dubious as well -- there are 8 references and the article is a stub, meaning more work is needed; we can't delete every stub just because it needs improvement -- that's what the stub tag is for! It needs cleanup and expansion for sure, but deletion would be wholly inappropriate. B.Rossow · talk 13:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is largely unreferenced and I note you removed the tag that has been there since 2008. Please don't remove the tag until that problem is addressed. Articles reads as a PR piece is definitely a reason to delete. Remove the PR material and there would be no article. #2 is very relevant as it appears wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes, which is not allowed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the History section, which does indeed read like a PR piece and needs to be trimmed considerably, the article is well-referenced. Tag that section if you like, but the article overall has adequate citations in the areas that matter, particularly as a stub. You clearly have a bone to pick with this article, but please try to be objective. B.Rossow · talk 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, just now I actually took the time to check the few references provided for the History section and the vast majority of the info included there is drawn from the cited references. Perhaps every sentence doesn't have a footnote, but the information is found in the referenced material. Perhaps you'd like better (if redundant) footnotes, but the references are there if you actually take the time to read. B.Rossow · talk 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I clearly don't have any issues or a bone to pick and resorting to personal attacks like the above is not going to persuade me this article has merit in it worth saving; quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not free webspace for advertising a company. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack but a simple observation. If you would take the time to compare the article side by side with its references in two separate windows, as I did, you'd see that the citations cover the vast majority of the text in the article that you claim is unreferenced. I utterly fail to understand why you don't get that. On a more final note, I'm not at all interested in convincing you as your mind is clearly made up; I post this solely for the benefit of others who may be interested in taking more time to critically evalueate what's there rather than taking your [incorrect] word for it that it's "largely referenced." B.Rossow · talk 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, I will now note that I have done significant editing to the page to remove PR-sounding language and to add additional third-party references located via simple Google searches (which in itself should demonstrate the notability of the subject, if I can find numerous third-party articles referencing FPX in a matter of minutes). B.Rossow · talk 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it still doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG. You know the continued personal attacks are quite likely to have the contrary effect to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to provide a convincing argument to retain this article, that is best achieved by referring to policy rather than launching personal attacks against the nominating editor or by edit warring to remove tags that indicate improvement is required. Both behaviours are counter productive to your end goal. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the refs are company press releases or corporate websites, and others don't seem to say what is claimed (eg "best known" claim in the lede is not backed up by the salesforce.com entry given) so referencing doesn't seem to be up to scratch. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability in that is doesn't sound particularly notable to begin with and the sources used do not rise to the level of demonstrating notability per Wikipedia's standards. Repeated press releases, trade magazine puff pieces/paid ads and so forth are trivial coverage, regardless of how short or long they are. Considering how many links are given with none of them being names of note it suggests that there are no good sources available and the person who put it together knew that was the best he or she had to work with. DreamGuy (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, per all the "deletes" above. Fails WP:ORG, cites don't establish notability. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and advertising issues. Out of the references currently in the article, most appear to be about the CEO himself, and others are either primary sources (directory listings, PR, etc) and a couple awards- this article does not establish lasting notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:47, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Space Theory

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

A new theory of the universe probably being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—At the current time, this topic doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There are a few mentions in journal articles only. Hence I can't support a keep.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Independent of this author I have also read or seen this theory mentioned in books or on television shows. The author of this article probably did not invent Quantum Space Theory. The author has provided several references to where this theory can be found. There are some very notable theoretical physicists that support this theory such as Petr HoYava. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting idea, but it may be too undeveloped or too new for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Could be made a lot better and more info added to it. It is in a sorry state at the moment. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science unless shown otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The billions spent on Large Hadron Collider to find a single particle that might confirm at least an aspect of Quantum Space Theory the Higgs Boson.String theory and quantum mechanics may just be theories, however, to call it Junk science is a bit harsh. Every theoretical physicist in the world is looking for proof of multiple planes of existence. Have a look at this it may help explain it to the non-initiated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBrIBs3YRWI Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The few sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination are just accidental juxtapositions of these three words - nothing to do with any theory that posits two time dimensions. Similarly the irrelevancies brought up above about Petr Hořava, the Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs Boson and multiple planes of existence and the linked interview with Michio Kaku (which I have just watched) have nothing to do with this so-called theory. Golgofrinchian seems to be confusing mainstream scientific investigation of the possibility of more dimensions than the familiar 3+1 with this piece of fringe speculation. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear non-notable fringe. I just followed the links from the references. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (video game)

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. Freeware game made with RPG Maker. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability demonstrated in the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 23 March 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 closing as moot. Article was deleted already by User:Orangemike citing WP:CSD#G7, requested by the main editor. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart's Group Valuation Model

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

I can find sources for SGVM meaning "Start-up General Valuation Model" but not one called "Stuart's" on Google, GBooks or GNews. Based on the searches it seems doubtful that the significant impact required against the general notability guideline can be met using independent reliable sources. PROD removed without explanation, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this article is eager to tell me that The ease of use and quality of the analysis has seen use in the model grow on a exponential basis within many large industries and corporations, it seems to be much shyer about describing the model or its operation. After reading this I haven't a clue what it is. I call that patent nonsense and likely coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 17 March 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) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkane

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

Non-notable hip-hop "band". History also contains info on an equally non-notable metal band. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- can't find any coverage in secondary sources. -- anndelion (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced for much too long. Article's 4 year history reveals not that much improvement over the history of the article. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 24 March 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. I am speedy deleting this. The result of this AFD is a no-brainer, and allowing this article to exist (and be caught by mirrors) simply adds to add publicity to a newstory of a stupid girl who made a life-wrecking self-destructive mistake. A racist rant on youtube is WP:NOT encyclopedic. The fact that it made a couple of newsheadlines is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. In the unlikely event this story gains traction, we can debate it again in a few weeks. Scott Mac 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wallace (UCLA Student)

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

Textbook case of an individual notable for only one event, and so not deserving of an article. The event itself is unlikely to receive lasting coverage, meaning a move is unlikely to be appropriate. Note that this article was created before at Alexandra Wallace (student), but was deleted under G10. -- Lear's Fool 08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E policy cited by nominator. VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 08:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 08:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E policy. Also from news media the subject unintentionally released it to the world and now she has recanted her video. Article if it stays will potentially risk being coattrack and vandalism and served as a lightning rod for people who has nothing better to do on wikipedia. --Visik (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been, you'll notice the history of Alexandra Wallace was so badly vandalised that many of the page revisions had to be suppressed. -- Lear's Fool 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - texbook BLP1E case, and a magnet for abuse that has necessitated suppression. Nothing else needs to be said - Alison ^❤ 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Trevor Sitch

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

This article was blanked by a new user who has a username which is the same as the article in question. I'm taking this to mean that the person in question doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia. While we can't just remove articles because people don't want them, this is a BLP and, after doing a quick search, the only significant coverage I can find is [29], which I don't think can be considered independent, as it is published by the club he was a board member on. To sum up, I don't believe we should have a BLP on a person of fringe notability who does not want the article to exist. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24 appreciate your thoughts. What is a bop? Sorry blp not bop— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlessitch (talk • contribs) 3:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McElwain

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

Article was re-created after deletion from previous AfD. Reasons for deletions from previous time holds true again. Person appears to be a non-notable docent. Has published some articles, but I can't find much. Says he is at the University of Stockholm. He is not listed when I searched on the Univ. site, but some published articles had him there in the past. Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
'Speedy delete G4 and salt. This article is not the same as the one that was deleted, but rather is significantly worse. And as the deleted version said, his docent position is "a largely honorary position with few or no teaching duties," so if holding that position is the best that can be said for him it's not much. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent claim to notability in article is that "He is well-known for his conversion from Christianity to Shi'a Islam." However, Google News Archive search for Thomas McElwain Islam OR muslim gives only one hit, and even that isn't significant coverage. I found no reviews of his book "Islam in the Bible" on either GNews Archive or GScholar, so he doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. I'm no expert on our WP:salting policy but note that this article hasn't been repeatedly recreated following deletion as the first deletion discussion resulted in 'Keep'. Qwfp (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. repeatedly recreated without improvement. Subject just isn't notable RadioFan (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 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 per WP:CRIN. --Selket ^Talk 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Barnett

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alex Barnett

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

Personal Page. Problems with notability. Please provide reasons to why this person is relevant and needs to be included in wikipedia. -- Throwaway2011 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 06:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, the only sources are statistical references, which means there's nothing to support an actual article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is 50 first class matches not enough? Go and read WP:CRIN. The-Pope (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Keep per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nixon (talk • contribs) 8:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - comfortably meets notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. JH (talk page) 09:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really? WP:CRIN and the fact he has played 68 professional matches makes him notable. I'll add WP:ATH for good measure as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per all above: he has played 50 matches at the highest domestic professional level of his sport. Harrias ^talk 12:17, 20 March 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 Community (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples

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

I love Community as much as the next girl, but not every episode will meet notability guidelines. This is one such episode. There is no information here that isn't already included on the main episode list. In fact, the episode list for season 2 contains this information plus a summary. I am gonna have to go ahead and request AfD. At this time, there is an insufficient amount of external content specific to this episode. Valid sources currently offer one of three things: plot summary, ratings, critical review/recap. Per Wikipedia's style guidelines for television episodes, in order to be considered notable, an episode article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The MOS guideline for writing about fiction clarifies that "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." As with most individual television episodes, it is unlikely that these requirements can be met at this point.

I have considered merging - but as previously stated, there is nothing in this article that wasn't simply C+P from the main list. Redirect may still be an option, but that seems like an unnecessary step. In the main list, linked articles currently point to genuinely notable episodes in the series' history - leaving this episode as an internal WP link (just to redirect back to itself) seems too convoluted and is misleading at first glance. Deletion is a much better option in this case, as absolutely no new information will be lost. ocrasaroon (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think there is a policy that WP is not a TV directory. Borock (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season article there is no compelling reason to delete this stub or even bring it to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or if indeed things are already entirely covered in the target, redirecting will suffice. Redirects are cheap and there is rarely a good reason to turn an article that can be upmerged into a redlink. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nothing to merge. 97198 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list, and (obviously) unlink the link found there. That way, anyone who searches for the episode will find what they are looking for relatively easily. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:43, 21 March 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 Janwillem van de Wetering. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grijpstra and de Gier

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

Unsourced nonsense about some fictional characters in a novel. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm not personally familiar with the characters, I've seen the author's name, and the list of novels involving these characters suggests that Wikipedia ought to cover them in some manner--even as just redirect(s) to the relevant section of the author's article. Any ideas or preferences? Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Janwillem van de Wetering#Grijpstra and de Gier novels? --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: Par down the excessive descriptions of the characters to the essence and put at the top of the above mentioned section. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Not enough significant coverage to WP:verify notability but maybe some of it can be salvaged as part of a broader notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the moment. There's enough to constitute its own article eventually though: Grijpstra and De Gier is a series of Dutch novels, as well as a television series, so it's notable enough. Kusonaga (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Weiner

AfDs for this article:

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

This person seems to be only notable for one event, being involved in a controversy about what he wrote about another person. The introduction gives some general facts about his life and career without making any real claim to notability, then the article gets into the controversy and spends most of its time there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of the information on the dispute is included in a lengthy footnote in the Edward Said article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I wrote already on the article discussion, the article reflects the image cultivation of Weiner and his camp and is based on highly biased "sources" (JCPA, frontpagemag,...) which are to be attributed to this camp. revision, taking into account more objective views, is one possibility. But it could well be that this person for itself isn't notable enough and that the essence of the article can be moved to the Edward Said article.--Severino (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weiner is the author of multiple published and widely reviewed books and is thus notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR. This article can be expanded and improved, I see no policy based justification for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that the person is notable for one event is incorrect. He is a scholar, has published articles in academic journals as well as major peridocals of high standing. The entry should not be deleted. --ResidentRevenant (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whole his main notoriety in the news was with regard to Said (even making multiple mentions in the NYT), his other works are widely cited (huge number, in fact, per Google Scholar - not "google"). [30] shows that Weiner is not a "one trick pony." Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very well sourced article about a notable person. He has lots of published works, and there are lots of articles about himself.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz, ResidentRevenant, Collect. Not an earth-shaking figure, but not unworthy of a short article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. FIX this article, which is terrible. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Person appears to pass notability requirements; article needs to be improved. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitely a one trick pony; if it weren't for his misguided academic stalking and character assassination of Said, nobody would know a thing about this guy. All his notability comes from the Said incident (just look through and actually read the google scholar links mentioned above); and it is more than well covered in the Said article itself. If we keep the article, it might be better reframed as "Justus Weiner Edward Said controversy" or something rather than as a bio. csloat (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Collect. Inspecting the Google scholar links as recommended above I find that years before the Said controversy he was described as a domain expert, and was publishing articles in well known journals of international law that were subsequently cited extensively by other scholars. Easily meets the notability standards. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Cited extensively by other scholars? This should be interesting. csloat (talk) 21:18, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico national under-22 football team

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

This article is not needed since the Mexico U-22 caps will count as a full senior international cap in Copa America matches. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 03:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no such thing as a Mexican under-22 team; rather, the Mexican senior side will represent them at the competition, but it has been decided by the Mexican FA to only use players under the age of 22 (to give them experience or whatever). Giant Snowman 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but an article on the Mexican U23 team or Olympic team would probably be valid. In such an article, reference to the nature of the team playing as the official side would be appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's senior team. TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GiantSnowman, they will be representing the senior team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Zanoni (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no such team. – Michael (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 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 under CSD A7 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics of Life

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

No indication of of notability, most references link to about.com, only the quotes are referenced. Documentary is 10 minutes long (even though this is not a criteria)... really? Goes on and on. Also one of the external links goes to the Black Swan website. MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nachman Kahana

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

No indication he meets WP:BIO. The article has only one reliable secondary source, and that's actually an obituary of his brother, not him. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor rabbi, author of a marginal talmudic work. -- Y not? 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of his coverage is in Hebrew language media, but searches reveal he has received somewhat substantial coverage in English language sources. [31][32][33][34] --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in those google searches just mention him in passing. Many are just obits of his brother. I see no indication he meets WP:BASIC. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They all "mention him in passing"? That's a stretch.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K., which sources are specifically about him, then? As opposed to say, sources that quote him on a topic, or sources on organizations he belongs to, etc. Is there, for example, a newspaper or magazine article about Kahana? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him until now. Most of what I found were a lot of articles by him but not much 3rd-party stuff about him of any significance -- at least not in English. Rooster613 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of you before today, yet I don't claim it diminishes your notability in any way.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayjg. --BozMo talk 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively well known and greatly respected in Settler circles. Here is another source about him, not his more famous brother. Check out the website if you have not already.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just per all the reliable sources cited in the article, plus more in Hebrew as mentioned here, part of a very notable rabbinical family, and the works he wrote. IZAK (talk) 11:09, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Chun Tam

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

Local politicians are not inherently notable without other substantial coverage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a district councillor without any other great claims to notability. fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search says not notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 16:21, 31 March 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 userfy to User:Djc wi/Write This Down (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write This Down (band)

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

Delete. Subject does not meet notability guidelines presented at WP:BAND. Released one studio album on a notable indie label. Did not chart. Much discussion on the talk page regarding the possibility that the band's music has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Meeting this criteria would indicate that the subject meets #11 of the WP:BAND guidelines. However, rotation is limited to RadioU and ChristianRock.Net, neither of which are considered national major radio networks. In addition to the failure to meet WP:BAND, the article has not established notability through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~The band has two EPs.The second EP was listed as an album by their label. One review spends more time lamenting this choice from the label than they do reviewing the album.~~ The label is an imprint of EMI Christian music, so not indie per se. The band clearly does not meet WP:BAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now, I ain't about to be spilling my age for nothing. That said, well over a hundred years ago, I used to book indie bands through T&N for various conferences. They were the go-to indies when they first started out. EMI owns 50 percent of the label. To this day, T&N continue to define themselves as an indie label. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, Write This Down (EP) and Write This Down (album) are two separate projects. The EP was released independently and the album was released by Tooth & Nail Records. ChristianRock.Net may not be a network, but RadioU is. They broadcast from two parent stations in Ohio and California. It is this fact that distinguishes RadioU from local radio stations since local stations only broadcast from one parent station. Write This Down (band) meets Criterion 11. --Djc wi (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. Respectfully, neither RadioU or ChristianRock.Net qualify. Cind.amuse 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I've explained how RadioU is a network. Please explain how RadioU isn't a network. --Djc wi (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Two stations isn't a network. It's two stations, one of which is KRQZ, which has no entity of its own, so it's essentially a repeater of the first station. See http://www.radio-locator.com/info/KRQZ-FM Where is KRQZ's home page? Who are KRQZ's on-air personalities? Who is the station manager at KRQZ?
      In a real network each station plays local content, has options on some national content, and has requirements for other national content. I'm thinking of NBC Red Network or CBC Radio.
      And according to radio network "The Broadcast type of radio network is a network system which distributes programming to multiple stations simultaneously". This is only one other licensed station. The others are repeaters. In fact KRQZ is just a glorified repeater.
      RadioU is a great radio station, WUFM, and I have listened to it since 1997, but it's not a network since it's one station in Columbus with multiple low-power repeaters around the country.
      Now, being owned by the same company doesn't make it a network either because KWPZ and KCMS are owned by the same company and they don't share any resources. They're two separate stations.
      So I can't see how RadioU is a traditional network and as such should not qualify toward the criteria listed in WP:BAND. If that's the case, there are a lot of indie bands who need to be added because they make the daily RadioU Most Wanted list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In response to Djc wi above. Network? Not a network? I don't know and haven't made a statement either way. However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the two radio broadcast entities are networks. That said, the topical notability criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. This is where the rotation airplay falls short. In spite of all this, we still have a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not negate the requirement for significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already commented above on the two "projects" as you called them. The first is an EP and doesn't qualify toward the criteria as listed in WP:BAND. The second "project" does. I have corrected my comment above to reflect that fact. One album and one EP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, and thank you for your correction. And just to clarify, I never mentioned being owned by the same company as a criterion for being considered a network or not. It is simply because RadioU is being broadcasted by more than one parent station in different coverage areas across the United States. --Djc wi (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article also meets Criterion 12. Has been subject of hour-long broadcast over national TV network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the link to the proof of Criterion 12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6cVJAA1FQw TVU's Most Wanted is an hour-long broadcast on TVU, aired on KTV, a national network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I checked out the link, but rather than appearing for an hour-long interview or broadcast of which they were the subject, the interview is just under ten minutes long. Are the other 50 minutes somewhere else? Sorry, I couldn't find the content that would fulfill the topic notability criteria. Cind.amuse 08:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The video is of an hour broadcast. TVU's Most Wanted plays music videos and internal promotions in the other 50 minutes. The video just cut out everything else. Since other music videos and promotions take up the other part of the show, that would make Write This Down the subject of the show. For proof of "the other 50 minutes," TVU's most wanted airs on Friday at 4, 7, and 10 PM ET & PT. You can see that the subject of the show receives about 10 minutes of airtime and the other 50 minutes is videos and promotions. --Djc wi (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Ten minutes of coverage does not equate to being the subject of an hour-long broadcast. Cind.amuse 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - KTV isn't a national TV network! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. KTV is a national network. If it's not, then what is it? --Djc wi (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment What are the TV stations in the TV network? It's a music channel that broadcasts through the Internet, Sky Angel and KTV where it has a four-hour timeslot during the time when other network affiliated stations are running infomercials. It's owned by the same parent company as RadioU. It's a stretch to call it a network, and certainly not in the spirit of WP:BAND. Since you won't let this issue drop, would you mind giving full discloser of your relationship to the band and its record label? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue here is the two words Major and National. Neither the tv channel, or the radio stations meet this criteria. No denying they are networks, but the other two parts are the qualifiers. (Trust me, my own band got lots of student, local and pirate radio plays, but you will notice that Digital Fish is conspicuously a red link. What can I say, the media is populated by philistines! ;-)). While I do hope that this band achieves notability, and from what is being posted, it is clear they are heading in the correct direction, as yet, they do not justify a page. I would suggest that at present, this would be best suited to a dedicated website, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web hosting service. Bennydigital (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, also agree with Bennydigital above. LK (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not meet WP:BAND as per Bennydigital. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - It's obvious that this discussion has gone on too long, but the band is still active and will most likely be releasing a second album on Tooth & Nail Records in the future. Until then, the page should be maintained as a user page until the second album is released. --Djc wi (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one can prevent you from adding the contents of the page to your user page or as a sub page of it, but it's not advised nor is it necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious, why isn't it advised or necessary? --Djc wi (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tails to Tell Animal Rescue Shelter Ltd.

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [35]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Sussex bus crash

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. we don't report every fatal crash in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, also WP:1EVENT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article has no lasting notability and Wikipedia is not a news service. Hut 8.5 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event is not notable enough for it's own article and it doesn't comply with Wikipedia is not a news service. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A bus crash that killed several people is by no means routine, so this should not be judged under that policy. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which requires an event to have long-term coverage and lasting impact. At first glass this appears to fail massively... but this suggests otherwise. Regional coverage from seven years later which mentions the creation of a charity as a direct result of the crash is certainly better from a notability point of view than what's there at present. Not enough by itself, but this would appear to be less clear cut than the four above !votes suggest. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men

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

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (WP:NALBUMS) Eauhomme (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You'll have to show where this album has been "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the Allmusic review alone sufficient to keep the article? I know there's a general bias here at Wiki against "20th Century Masters" compilations, and I know that notability isn't inherited, but as an encylopedia isn't it our duty to inform and isn't it reasonable to assume that a reader interested in a notable band would also be interested to know what tracks are on a compilation? Why force them to go find the information at another source when we have the information right here? WP:IAR allows us to use good judgement here and not stick to the letter of the law. Here's another source. Robman94 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable album, no secondary sources. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commentary of Robman94 above and IAR. Strikerforce (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a release of a notable group on a major label, and it is widely distributed internationally. Allmusic review qualifies as significant independent coverage in reliable source. Onthegogo (talk) 00:03, 22 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter/Reflections

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

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are secondary sources around, though on the brief side - an allmusic review, and this from Google News, which appears to be from a Korean news website. Since the group is very notable, all the article content is verifiable (although the release date in the article appears to be wrong), and there are a couple of sources available, I don't really see a compelling reason to delete this. Would we really have a better encyclopedia if this was deleted?--Michig (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "review" from Allmusic isn't a review at all but rather a recursive, three-sentence summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01*:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. non-notable album. MoondogCoronation (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:17, 17 March 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. There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon

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

At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced article about a minor group of fictional characters. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what the hell? "At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? "'need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? That's some confusing wording. Also, as Reyk said, this is a group of characters. Not 'a character. Sometimes I wonder if you just copy-paste your deletion rationales withoutactually checking if they're appropriate. NotARealWord (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator clearly didn't read the article, he is just pasting the same justification at random to Transformers related articles. It's a group of characters from a anime series, which is mentioned on List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons, so that might be appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable third person information to support the article notability and you know it talk Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination is complete pap, and proves you didn't even read the article. Proof of your bad faith, and blatant attempt to disrupt Wikipedia with your nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you don't like people like myself and others nominating Transformers which are poor and unsupported by anything other than PROVEN unreliable fansites doesn't mean they shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If there is a mediocre Transformers article there is normally a high likelyhood Mathewignash either created or contributed too it Dwanyewest (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know,even though I'm not for keeping this, Mignash does have a point. It's not easy to take your nominations as good faith if it seems like you don't actually look at the articles. NotARealWord (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One poorly incorrectly worded nomination does not demonstrate a catalogue of bad faith nominations.Mathewignash likes accusing myself and others who don't think mediocore articles merly out of of malicous spite and nothing more. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first suspicious thing. You recently AfD-ed the type of articles you had earlier suggested to merge. With some rather strange wording (see here for elaboration on that). I also recall at some point last year you just copypasted your delete votes across multiple pages, even when it wasn't quite relevant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it later when i saw the mistake in that nomination. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By, "that nomination", you mean which thing? The copypasta-ing was from you voting in other people's nominations, among other (inappropriate) things, not your own nominations, if I recall correctly. NotARealWord (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were complaining about a typo mistake I made in another nomination but nevertheless. I have not done anything illegal or against wikipedia's rules to my knowledge. It not illegal to nominate more than one article at once. If it is an issue of how I word nominations I shall be more explicit in the future. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know what inappropriate things have I done in nominations not mine. I would like to know what I am being accused of. But I feel its diverting from this nomination. No doubt Mathewignash will use sources with at best tenuous relevant to justify keeping this article active (as he has history of it). I still believe this article has insufficient sources to support this article notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh it is not illegal to "nominate more than one article at once". I've done a lot of that. But please, don't sound like you were too lazy to check what the article subject is. The "inappropriate things" you've done are basically that, not paying attention to the articles and stuff discussed/nominated when commenting/voting. Or at least sounding like you don't (see this reply I left to a comment you put as a non-AfD example.) NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something important here is that whether you like the article or not, whether it fits the guidelines or not, other people put work into it. From the looks of the history, over a dozen registered editors added to this article. If you want to come in and delete other people's hard work, at the very least you should be required to read and understand the article and give it the respect those writers deserve. Putting in some cut-and-paste reasoning, one that's not even correctly describing the article, without any actual research is a major sign of disrespect to your fellow authors. I've seen lots of articles I don't like, but I don't try to delete them, I try to IMPROVE them, or I leave them to those who know more about the subject. Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mathewignash, Dwanyewest and NotARealWord, keep it calm and maintain the discussion fresh. Do not bring personal bias to a AfD, it is not within the scope of this project. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:21, 17 March 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 Aston Martin Vanquish. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin Vanquish S

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

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is simply a tuned version of an existing car, the Aston Martin Vanquish. It is therefore analogous to the LP670-4 version of the Lamborghini Murcielago, the GTO version of the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, or the Super Sport version of the Bugatti Veyron. None of these special trims have -- or need -- their own page; they are covered as sub-models within the parent article. This should be true of the Vanquish S. I would have proposed this as a merge, but the Vanquish article already contains almost the entire text of the Vanquish S article, so a merge is superfluous. Sacxpert (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the user has done a good job on the page. He has put lots of infomation therefore I think it should be Keeped. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't deny that there is useful information, but that information has been (largely) included in the Aston Martin Vanquish, which is where I'd say it belongs, as a section heading. We don't have separate pages for the 599 GTO, the Murcielago SV, the Veyron SS, or the various iterations of the Spyker C8. The Vanquish S simply isn't distinct enough, on its own merits, to warrant its own page. Sacxpert (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per. Nice page, just not distinct from Aston Martin Vanquish Douglasi (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Even though the article is well written and good effort have been used on it, it does not have notability, because it is a limited and tunned version of a existent car. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote - To prevent loss of information, the article text could be incorporated as a section into Aston Martin Vanquish article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:29, 17 March 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. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. -- Lear's Fool 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypop

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC#Albums, lacks coverage to show independent notability. Aside from original research this article is little more than a track listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No indication of notability of this album. WP:SPEEDY#A9

Incidently this band has a main article And One, a discog article And One discography, 4 album articles Anguish (album), Flop!, Aggressor (And One album) and Bodypop, and a couple of single articles.Sometimes (And One song), Zerstorer (And One song) (as well as 3 others currently under Afd discussion. None of these articles makes any vague attempt to establish notability apart from one unsourced mention of a 'best newcomer award' from an unspecified body and a few attempts to inherit notability from the bands they have covered or aspired to copy. I'm not saying the band isn't notable (I don't really feel qualified to judge it) but there really needs to be some attempt at sourcing or else a major cleanup here. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Square Mall

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

un-Notable mall. I don't see the value of keeping it. Phearson (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a regional mall[36], but at first glance it may be a tougher case for individual notability, in which case I would redirect and add a paragraph to Cleveland, Tennessee about the mall.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Keep per work by Dravecky.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regional mall that crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have added several references to the article but a quick swim through Google News finds many more with the mall as the subject, including real estate transactions, retail updates, events at the mall, and such. There are also nice in-depth pieces like "Keely, Harrison (June 6, 2010). "Out of the box at Bradley Square Mall". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved March 14, 2011." to seal the notability deal. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chattanooga Times Free Press piece is just good enough for me. Kansan (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naratip Phanprom

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence which shows notability. Giant Snowman 14:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per source found by Phil Bridger. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did play in Singapore Cup and does appear to have played for maybe 3 different Thai Premier League clubs but it is a bit sketchy for one who does not read Thai, and as his number for previous clubs was 22 and he was a goalkeeper, it is uncertain whether he took to the field in any league match.--ClubOranje^T 09:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- additional cmt Names are sometimes spelt Narathip and Phanphrom or even Panphrom.--ClubOranje^T 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in the Thai Premier League.[37] Phil Bridger (talk) 00:42, 19 March 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 Beyoncé Knowles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BET Presents Beyoncé

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

The only content in this article is the extensive track listing and an infobox. After a web search I found only an amazon sale page. No reviews, no sales/chart info. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BET_Presents_Beyonc%C3%A9&action=edit&section=1[reply]

Redirect to the already much more well-cited and well-known B'Day Anthology Video Album, a later release with most of this same content without the retailer-exclusive pack in. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirecting it; the Anthology Video album is not really related to this DVD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to satisfy WP:NALBUM and no awards. Similar AfD here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into Anthology Edition article. I'd like to assure that awards aren't a factor for notability, many albums out there are notable and don't receive a single award. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only similarities between this video and the B'Day Anthology is two music videos. Otherwise they are unrelated which is why I prefer deletion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation

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

foundation of questionable notablity WuhWuzDat 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spent some time on Google looking at this foundation. Seems to have significant involvement with enviromental and social issues in the Canadian arctic. Article itself is well done. Seki1949 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I happen to think that, at a bare minimum it needs copyediting with a chainsaw, and possibly a bulldozer and/or flamethrower. WuhWuzDat 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why the hundreds of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed in the nomination are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be nice if the user Wuhwuzdat would not bite the newcomer, if you think it needs to be edited for it to be clearer and more concise I invite you to do so. The references and links are all valid and credible, also the foundation seems to be fairly important to major issues in Canada further bolstering its importance to remain on wikipedia. 15688577a (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 15688577a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This foundation has been around for nearly half a century and has clearly left an imprint worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A fairly well done article to boot, not spammy in the least. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 17 March 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. -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bayliss

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

Contested prod. Article about a voice actor who works on video games. No evidence of notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:CREATIVE andy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Botwood. andy (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While not all Rare employees (current and former) fail notability standards, I could not find anything substantive in which to build an article with. There's this one passing mention from GamesTM magazine here, but that's all I can find. –MuZemike 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not significant enough (not to denigrate his work) to pass GNG or BIO notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Marauders

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

non-notable article about an amateur group in a college. all refs are their promotional blogspot and youtube links. edits by an WP:SPA and from the IP addr of that college Arjun^codename024 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable cricket club which hasn't played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket and is of no historical importance. Per WP:CRIN it is non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an in-joke by a few cricket playing students from NIT. Lines like "Willow Cup is the annual intra-college cricket tournament of NIT Calicut - equivalent to the World Cup in international cricket" should be indicative. Tintin 03:31, 23 March 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 and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu Police

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion, but it appears there was some confusion about what it is actually about. All it describes is a local branch of the national police force, the Carabineros de Chile. For comparison to the US, it's a bit like having an article about a single detachment of state police. It is categorically not a police force or police department in it's own right. ninety:one 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails general notability guidelines. Individual units of the carabineros are not notable. Perhaps large subdivisions are but there are no local carabineros entities in Chile. The carabineros stationed in this town are not limited to patrolling this town and ones stationed in a neighboring town patrol this town and so forth.Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the communal subdivision of Carabineros de Chile in a provincial capital, we wouldn't be running out of the mill, nor creating confusion by adding articles on every single one, and I'm sure there are other ones which could have better references than this one will ever reach. My 2c as the author of the article. Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pichilemu. That seems like a reasonable compromise. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly into the article do you suggest? I can't think of a good place for it, there. I'm happy either keeping this on its own article or creating a list with all of the Pichilemu-based organizations (properly sourced, of course). Diego Grez (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pichilemu#Government and politics? At least in the U.S., police forces are part of the government. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh well. In Chile they are, kind of. Diego Grez (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:LOCAL Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, due to: not a police force by its own right, small size and dubious notability.Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 27 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joseph Swanson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter Joseph Swanson

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines or the subject notability guidelines for authors; there does not seem to be enough coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems promotional in intent. I don't think being a self-published author is necessarily a killer in terms of encyclopedia-worthiness, but this article gives us nothing of import about the subject and a Google search shows a fan club and a lot of seemingly self-produced material. Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date, assuming third-party sources appear over time... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note AfD is malformed; WP's search engine does not care if there are underlines between words, but Google's does. Checking Books and News yields no hits until spaces are used instead. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Pardon, I never use those links, so I didn't notice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Fixed the AfD template. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:26, 17 March 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. The "delete" side made no attempt to address Anarchangel's concerns, but is free to renominate immediately if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Biggs

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

No evidence of notability.The only reference to check out is to her own website. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I skimmed the interview, and am not sure if it is a reliable source. Not much else there. She likes Utilikilts. That's it. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What interview are you referring to? It's not a source in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. There was an interview in the external links. Is it gone? Bearian (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - I looked at the article and some source, and now I can't find it. Perhaps it was a dream .... LOL. It doesn't change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book review isn't much to establish notability, especially when correlated with the words by Emerson Probst who pushes out stuff for the book's publisher. There is a [LIZ+ATWOOD&pub=The+Sun&desc=5+THINGS+I+HAVE+TO+HAVE+NOW&pqatl=google 172 word article] behind a pay wall. But that is all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linda made numerous appearances on Baltimore, Maryland's WJZ-TV, starting in 2005, in interviews with Marty Bass and Don Scott's 'Coffee With' talk show that apparently span several commercial breaks. They refer to her in superlatives that I take with a pinch of salt, but I feel sure that with that much smoke there has to be some fire somewhere. I could not find the other clips, but her previous appearances are alluded to by Don Scott in her Dec. 1, 2010 appearance on the show. It is shown in full at the Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010 page on CBS Baltimore: CBS Local Events: CBS Local Pages. That is by far the highest quality source in the article, but it establishes notability, and nearly every sentence is cited now.

Linda is very active in the her particular subgenre of the fantasy art community, and has been called on to present the subject by the Glen Rock, Pennsylvania Fairie Festival (2010 Fairie Chautauqua Presenters Spoutwood Farm: Fairie Festival). Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, she passes #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." for the regard in which she is held by those who work with her, including those mentioned above, and the writer of the foreword to one of the book her art appears in (The Art of Faery), who is one of the conceptual artists who worked as a consultant on the Dark Crystal and Labyrinth (film), namely Brian Froud. Arguably she passes #2 as well, for her Lowbrow (art movement) underground comix-inspired renditions of fairies. #2 "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Anarchangel (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traphik

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

non notable "musician" WuhWuzDat 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. "non notable" besides the fact that he was ranked number by BILLBOARD and published in their tangible issue as well. This "Wuhwuzdat" guy is a simply just wants the page down for some reason. Kevinbarlow (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC as having a 7 week run so far on Uncharted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE, and per Hammer. This is a charted musician, and yes, a musician, though we don't like his music. Musicians can't all be creative; see Weird Al Yankovich. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion (perhaps further information about his early life?), he is new artist, as time passes by, the article eventually gets expanded and new things are added, but there is enough info there, that with a further research, would make it reach notability, verifiability and so on. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athoc

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY or the general notability guideline. The only non-press release source in the references now is a 2-paragraph mention from bizjournals.com, hardly enough to meet the requirement of multiple independent sources. I was unable to find any more suitable sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator has requested this article's deletion here. The page does not appear to be a valid G7 since it has multiple contributors. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking through the history, I don't see where many of the other editors added substance to the page; the text is almost all one author's, the remaining edits were all formatting or adding tags and templates. I'd suggest it is a valid G7. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a G7 if everyone else agrees that it applies. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to not allow it. I think it's important that ~~VQuakr~~ Andrew Young US (correction--wrong user, sorry) and AdHoc in general start to try to understand that they cannot control this page in any way. Since VQuakr indicates an intention to likely make a new article in the future, it's good for them to see right now that the decision to keep or delete the page, and what information to include on it, is not based on the company's desires, but based upon Wikipedia policies. However, some might argue that this is being unnecessarily bureaucratic, which of course Wikipedia is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another tech business, a a provider of network-centric mass notification and emergency communication systems. Referenced to press releases and PR sites. No showing that this business has had significant effects on technology, history, or culture of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The intention of having the page in place was to provide those seeking to understand the emergency notification industry with a snapshot of one entity that has helped to inspire, if not wholly introduce concepts that have spawned new forms of innovation and advancement for the technology in question. Not to sound condescending, but the discussion above is starting to sound like a schoolhouse debate on the punishment of an unruly or incorrigible student. I assure you gentlemen, that is not required here. The issue here is not one of whether Wikipedia was being leveraged for purposes other than creating a credible source of knowledge...but rather, it is one of inexperience with creating the most effective article possible. I concede this - hat in hand. However at this point, my concern is that no matter what edits or sources are cited in support of the article, its fate is a foregone conclusion regardless of this discussion. If I am assured that these edits will be reviewed in an unbiased and fully objective fashion, I will spend the time revising and validating the merit of this article. I believe that this company, having been around since 1999 and risen to become the de-facto solutions provider to millions of military personnel, college students and emergency managers worldwide -- is notable. Their solutions have evolved in parallel with the technology (3G, 4G, GSM, CDMA, etc) and infrastructure that enables them. Hundreds of other providers have appeared since 9/11, Virginia Tech and countless other tragedies. This company is one of the very few that was in existence before these unfortunate events, and has demonstrated a consistent commitment to new thoughts, ideas and solutions that are beneficial to all. These systems save lives. If they fail, they do not. It is that important. While there are some notable instances of failure relating to these types systems when used in live situations, none of these are attributable to this company. Given the aforementioned length of their existence, the rigid environments and stringent requirements within which their systems are deployed (primarily military) and documented chronology of innovation -- I strongly contend that this article is valuable. It is my own shortcoming not to have articulated this or created this article correctly with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Those seeking knowledge and insight into this industry should not suffer as a result. Andrew Young US (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should indeed have information about the emergency notification industry; but the starting place for such an article would be an article about emergency notification or emergency notification service. To single out one firm to provide a "snapshot" of the industry is putting the cart before the horse. We'd frankly be glad to have someone in the firm write us a concrete description of the methods and tools used by such firms. But until such time as Athoc itself is recognized by others as having invented or launched a product or service that has some kind of significance in the development of the field, it probably is not a promising subject for a standalone article. Rating services and trade awards in themselves don't tell us much, either. They really don't tell us what was achieved or why.

(Puts on a schoolmaster's mortarboard) I'd also recommend that you have a look at our basic neutrality policy, and look at the manual of style on words to watch and the plain English essay, which contains specific tips on writing on business subjects. Even here, you're calling the products solutions and the businesses solution providers. You're using leverage as a verb. Please don't take this personally, but that kind of writing breaks our neutrality policy and is not appropriate in main-space article texts. It requires heavy editing, or if it's too vague to be informative, it's just going to get removed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the feedback, and it is all taken with a sense of objectivity. That said, I would argue that this article on a "specific provider" is not "putting the cart before the horse" as you say. Have you actually sat and read this article? Please see both the "See also" and "Supporting Technology" sections. Upon completion, I think you will see that your comments create an oxymoron -- kind of like "freezer-burn". You are calling this a "stand-alone" article while the article itself is written to reference related aspects of the industry as well as the supporting infrastructure.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to provide the links and insight. Andrew Young US (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, just noticed I never actually put a !vote here. This is a company that looks like it's really right on the border--if they have the contracts that their press releases and website claims, they seem to have a significant impact on the field, but the problem is that we need reliable sources to keep the article. It may well be that in 6 months or a year this company will rise to the notability needed for an article. I would be happy to help them work on the article in Andrew Young US's userspace, if xe finds more sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your offer Qwyrxian, and I will be happy to accept your assistance if indeed the article is deleted. In the interim, I have applied a significant overhaul to said article, and have added some additional references. Over the course of the next day, I plan to increase these references in a clear and coherent sequence. I am hopeful that deletion will not occur prior to that time. If so, then the userspace option will become the focus. Andrew Young US (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not specifically reference advertising in my deletion nomination, because my main concern was the company's notability. However, I think it is noteworthy that the tone of this article has actually become more spammy since this deletion discussion began. It is always difficult to write neutrally about topics with which we are personally involved, and I am increasingly concerned that the creator of this particular article may simply be too close to the subject to effectively write about it. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a valid G7. Onthegogo (talk) 05:19, 24 March 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 Wave power. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floating wave power plant

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

Not notable: I cannot find news paper articles on this technology and company, see e.g. this search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The manufacturer of a product that harnesses this energy is not significant to the article. There are other articles that contain much of the same information such as Wave power. The graphics provided would also serve well on the Wave Power article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivec01 - News and TV news can be found on http://www.youtube.com/AdvancedWavePower and on http://www.advancedwavepower.com. Floating wave power plant is a new and most efficient ocean wave energy converter. I think it deserves to have own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivec01 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Ivec01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have tones of test data. Two large marine engineering companies do commercial design for Bass Straight. Please help me to improve Floating Wave Power Plant article. I really do not have editor experience but have plenty of data, video and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivec01 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have reliable sources? Unless the plant has been written about in newspapers, journals, books, or other such sources that are independent of the subject, it fails the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selected content to Wave power. As Golgofrinchian noted, some of the images and content may be usable in another article. However, given that the article was created by Ivec01 (talk · contribs), and given that the majority of links go to ivec.com.au, I have grave concerns about this article. At best, there's just an editor with a conflict of interest favouring links for his company. At worst, it's an outright spam attempt. However, it does look like there's some baby in the bathwater here that can be used elsewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 18 March 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 B.T.R. (album). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Even Matters

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

Fails WP:NSONG -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Time Rush. Indeed it does fail WP:NSONGS, just like Count on You. MobileSnail 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B.T.R. (album). Noncontroversial (this didn't really need to come to AfD.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, there's no applicable CSD category, and the creator has a history of removing deletion tags so PROD seemed likely to fail -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Hmm, guess I wasn't properly awake earlier - I've redirected it now, and ask for this AfD to be closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 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. Consensus indicates that the subject is notable enough for inclusion as a New York Times bestseller author. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Fitzpatrick

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

Fails WP:N —Eustress ^talk 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per best-known for having written the New York Times Bestseller . Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- one of the best authors of our time and we should be able to acknowledge that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.207 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The book is being published in 13 countries and 10 languages", says the Washington Post. Notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NY Times bestseller author is confirmed. This article in the Manila Bulletin states that Hush, Hush was on the bestseller list for 45 weeks, and reviews her Crescendo. There's a lot more out there in terms of soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per best-selling author status cited above. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 28 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude L. Kulp

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC and has no sources to establish notability. —Eustress ^talk 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability is sound in that he has an auditorium named after him. However, the article is very weak with regard to WP standards. It needs a proper bio page and a photo of either the person or the auditorium would help. More references such as the ones found in this search shows he is mentioned by name in several books. If that list is added to the article then it would bolster the Wikipedia:Notability and would go to a solid Keep. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere mention of his name in books would not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. You might be on to something with the auditorium, although I can't find anything explaining why the auditorium was named after him (was he the benefactor?) and it is just a small high school auditorium.

Unless some concrete evidence emerges in support, I still think this one may be a delete. —Eustress ^talk 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to disagree with Eustress. This subject has 'not notable' stamped all over it.. Associate Commissioner of the New York State Education Department is the highest he got; all the Gsearch reveals are trivial mentions or mentions within school bulletins, which are only to be expected. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all this time on AfD the sourcing in the article is still completely inadequate, and there is no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topics meets WP:PROF, and no other claim to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ponca City Public Schools. Move the current article to East Middle School (Oklahoma) for the time being and turn East Middle School into a disambiguation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Middle School

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a non-notable Ponca City, Oklahoma middle school. Please note that this article's school of topic is not the same school as in the previous nomination, so it does not qualify for speedy deletion. A relevant Google search [38] found no non-trivial and reliable third party references. Article also appears to be created from OR per a message on the talk page of the article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd redirect to the district, but this is probably a really common name for middle schools. Just look at East High School – and it's probably similar. The article should be deleted, but what to do at that site is a really complicated matter. Raymie (t • c) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on school district as this is a non-notable primary school. No redirect, per Raymie above. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no article on the school district of Ponca City...Ponca City Public Schools is linked in the Ponca City article, but it's a redlink. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps renaming this Ponca City Public Schools would be in order? Carrite (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that...if the article needs (warrants?) creating, that would be fine, but it appears the only two schools in the district that have articles are this one and the high school. To me, a simple education section like can be found in Salina, Kansas would suffice (although perhaps with a bit more prose). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, THEIR WEBSITE indicates the district has 7 elementary schools and 2 middle schools. That's plenty for an article, even if it's a bunch of redlinks for the time being... Conversion of this page to a page for the district (with a little introductory section) strikes me as a valid long-term option. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I think I have to agree that Arxiloxos' solution below is probably the one I'm more inclined to go for at this time. At the same time, the article about the district could be created and when it's up to scratch the article could be rerouted to that article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OUTCOMES#Education may offer some additional information when assessing this discussion for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma) and then redirect it to Ponca City, Oklahoma (which already has a nice list of the city's public schools). Then re-start East Middle School as a DAB page: there seem a large number of likely targets, some of which currently have their own articles (though whether they should have articles is another question).[39]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes, school pages are created as part of a week-long lesson that includes an introduction to Wikipedia, and this may be the case here [40]. In those situations, they stay up during the week and the hall monitors on the new pages patrol hold off on nominating until later. It's later. If I read this correctly, East Middle is limited to the 8th grade students in Ponca City, who come there after they finish 7th grade at West. I guess this could be merged to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education, but even better would be for someone to turn this into an article about Ponca City Schools and write about the schools in general-- looks like there's a high school, an east and west public middle school, three private K-8 schools and eight elementary schools. Mandsford 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education per usual practice. As discussed, Ponca City Public Schools would be a better target, if created. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a basic stub at Ponca City Public Schools that is pretty much written like my basic AZ school district articles. Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 31 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home.co.uk

AfDs for this article:

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

Article contains only unreliable sources and is written like an advertisement. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This website article lacks coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -Please see Wikipedia is not a.... No other Wikipedia:Notability is found other than it being a website. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajhesh vaidhya

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

Notability questionable. No independent sources. Eeekster (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references, including one from The Hindu which establishes that he won the 2010 Kalaimamani award for his veena playing. I think that gives notability. I cleaned up the article and added a refimprove tag. A related article that should probably have an afd discussion is Vegam, a movie Vaidhya directed the music for. It has no references and (probably) is not notable, as the mentions I saw of it were minor and negative...but I digress. Oh, one more thing, the title of the article, should it stay, should be changed so that his last name is capitalized (I didn't do it, in case I'm wrong). Nihola (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple articles about him in The Hindu, including this one, so meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 21 March 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 Y Bandana (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal dy Drwyn/Cân y Tân

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

Unremarkable songs. Article's creator claims that the winning of an award by a magazine establishes notability, but I disagree. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Plenty of scope for merging the track into the article of the band who wrote it. And for notability sake, I would be happier if the award the song won had its own article or even the publication that runs the award. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A search result all points back to the original band. The song shows no other notability even when using alternative search methods.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:39, 17 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy yuan

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

The article fails to address the WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. Searching GNews I find some mentions in the local press of being a political candidate, as would be expected for any election process, by itself this is not sufficient to demonstrate the significant impact required. Being a CEO is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability either based on the WP:BIO guidance. Fæ (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
Wendy Yuan is a noted local politician who has been featured in numerous news reports and interviews in both local and national media. On top of that, she is also a significant community figure in Vancouver, and has received awards and sat on boards of important associations. (sorry about the format of the response) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkl524 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to check the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, this is has been evolved after much discussion and represents a firm consensus. If Yuan's community work or corporate work is particularly notable and supported by reliable sources (such as national papers or respected books) then you may have a case against the general guidelines but she would have to be notable in her own right (as opposed to the notability of her company) and the impact must be demonstrably significant. AfDs run for at least 7 days, so you might find it useful to discuss detailed options for improvement on the article talk page (rather than here) in the meantime. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note (with my admin hat on) the AFD was improperly transcluded on the talk page. I've fixed it as of today, but it may be wise to let this AFD run long. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That puzzled me until I saw this change where an anon IP capitalized the name in the template, probably without realizing this would stop the notice working properly. Thanks for fixing it back. Fæ (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm sure it was good-faith. I find the "broken" ones on a bot, but it doesn't run very frequently. tedder (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with my user hat on) Per Fæ. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. As an elected politician and MP she meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's only a MP candidate, no? Or am I misunderstanding "candidate" and "riding" because of my south-of-Canadia education? tedder (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - overlooked the word "candidate. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a candidate, and not a notable person otherwise. Rawr (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, without prejudice to re-creation if and when she wins a seat in the House. PK T(alk) 14:05, 30 March 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 M60 machine gun. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mk43 Machine Gun

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

The Mk43 Machine Gun is know as the Mk43/M60E4 General Purpose Machine Gun. The topic seems to be covered sufficiently by M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. The article sources itself to a copyrighted editorial uploaded into wikimedia.org. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/MK43Editorial.pdf (How is such an upload even possible?) M60E4 was deleted in 2005 as blatant copyright violation from M60E4.Mk43.pdf.[41] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 10 due to Uzma Gamal's concerns, which seem plausible to me. I've also tagged File:MK43Editorial.pdf as a possibly unfree file (with noth notices to the editor). Jeez, it feels a bit like biting the newbie, but I'll monitor this guy to make sure he doesn't get overwhelmed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M60 machine gun: Even if we can resolve the copyright issues satisfactorily, this variant still has issues with redundancy and lacks notability independant of the M60. We don't need a content fork here. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I separated this from the existing M60 page is because there are MANY variations of the M60 and the Mk43, although called a M60E4, is different enough from the M60 that it shouldn't be under the M60 main header.

Additionally, the M60 page is HORRIBLE. I am not being defensive here, but why not nominate IT for deletion? It is a blatantly skewed by someone favoring the 240 and pretty much only references design flaws. It doesn't even give a sufficient history of the weapon. It has been flagged for being biased and needing citations, etc, for months, why isn't it up for deletion?

And I do feel like it's "biting the newbie" just because it's not perfect. I would like to learn how to do it right! I would like to be able to write a flawless article that doesn't get flagged, but it is hard when you're starting out! Why not HELP me? p.s. Bahamut I am a girl :) but thank you for not wanting me to get overwhelmed. I just feel like people are saying, x, y and z are wrong instead of trying to teach me how to make it better. Thanks. Littlemslawandorder (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies for the gender issue (there's actually been quite a bit of buzz lately about the gender gap on Wikipedia, so I'm pleased to see a new member of the fairer sex). Try not to take the deletion nomination personally; it's all part of the encyclopedia improvement process, and if you take it as a lesson learned instead of harsh criticism, you'll be writing better articles in no time.

The main issue (after the copyright isues, which can be easily resolved by some re-working) here is that the references don't really establish that this particular variant is notable independently of the main weapon platform (i.e. the way the M4 carbine is independent of the M16 rifle). We generally try not to split off sub articles like this unless article size demands it, and that's not an issue at the M60 article.

If you really have the resources you claim, then you'd be helping out much more effectively to edit the M60 article and improve it. Much of what you've written for this version could easily be transferred over, if properly referenced. Your efforts there would be much better appreciated, and if you do build the article up to the point that splitting makes sense, then that's an option you can take up for discussion at talk:M60 machine gun.

It also sounds like you could use some editor support and collaborative tools. Since you seem interested in firearms, you could try joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. If you ask there, somebody might be willing to mentor you in the specific nuances of writing these kinds of articles. Another good place to start is reading policies and guidelines and the Five pillars. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. This topic appears to be covered sufficiently there, but this title is absolutely searchable. I would prefer to keep the history intact underneath a redirect in case anything needs to be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it looks like lifebaka and Moonriddengirl have taken care of the copyright issues, so now we can just address the notability. The rationale I presented in my merge !vote still stands. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:38, 22 March 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 List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triana Orpheus

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

This article has only one source, and it has no third party or real world coverage. Most of The Venture Bros. are not notable, it currently fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to the character list article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. The source doesn't really go into reception. Need independent reliable sources that can WP:verify notability and why this is significant. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 19 March 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 List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Byron Orpheus

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

Only one source, this Venture Bros. character has no citations and no real world or third party coverage to establish the notability. I doubt that the character is notable, this article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PLOT and lack of sources to indicate notability Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one ref, which is not reliable. 50% is the plot and other 50% is the "History and activities on the show", which is original research.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The lack of sources is concerning. This character is however shown on almost every episode of The Venture Brothers. A good deal of effort went into this page and it seems the main editor is making good faith effort in presenting the character. However, if they cannot provide more reliable sources it should be removed. Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 19 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forumosa

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

Unreferenced article about a Taiwanese PHP Bulletin Board and classified ads website. No evidence to subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (web), and I could find no sources out of which to construct a rewrite. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can bring this article up to standard given a few days - please hold off deletion while I tackle this. Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High number of ghits but being unreferenced and promotional it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Del Debbio

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

another editor had prodded this and the prod was removed. tagged not notable since october 2009. no verifyable sourcing. just bringing to afd to determine if this person is in fact notable. Original article creator appears to have been a SPA account with no activity other then related to this person. and not activity at all since. also one of the references appears to be what his username was based off of. So there is a definate question of conflict of interest.Tracer9999 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article as it stands does not demonstrate notability but the Portuguese article, while under-referenced (at least by English Wikipedia standards), looks as if it might (or, if my almost non-existent knowledge of Portuguese isn't misleading me, at least suggests the existence of RS in Portuguese). Any Portuguese-speakers around to confirm or deny this? PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be notable based on sources from Brazil, although I do not speak the language. BOZ (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Brothers

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

Subjects fail notability guidelines as all major searches return things from their own sites. Also, article is written like a press release and advertisement Canyouhearmenow 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much results on Google and no results in Amazon and Allmusic. The article fails WP:BOLDFACE, WP:NPOV and WP:YOU ("For a full list of awards, go to The Fox Brothers official site www.FoxBrothers.com"). In my opinion: Delete!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a sort of BLP and unreffed it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 24 March 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 Dreamcatcher (novel). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripley

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

Majority plot summary article that completely fails WP:N; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cites only primary sources: the book & film. Nothing here that isn't/couldn't be succinctly covered in those aritcles. I redirected it some time back, but the creator reverted requesting "due process, take it to WP:AFD please", so here it is. The creator himself described it to me as "an ancient piece of trifle that I wrote many eons ago that I think could go. It should be done the formal way though, as several people have contributed besides myself." So, here it is. IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I believe the current article is certainly less than stellar, given the number of in-universe characters that have pages on wikipedia, there is potential for this article to explain what is an extraordinarily complicated character central to a Stephen King novel. However, that being said, I have no attachment to the present article. It can always be remade, or the article on the novel expanded, when some deeper discussion can come of it and be referenced to secondary sources. I'll leave it to the community to decide what to do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are other in-universe character articles out there doesn't excuse this one. The only way to explain "what an extraordinarily complicated character" it is would be to cite secondary sources remarking on that extraordinarity/complexity, and even then I don't see why that couldn't simply be done in the novel/film articles themselves, since the creature has no notability outside of the singular story in which it appears. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If and when. The complexity is my opinion, but the character can be described using the novel/film as primary sources. However, notability can only be established with secondary sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a WP:PLOT summary. No sources to WP:verify notability or provide anything significant outside of a summary of the book or film. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies exclusively on primary sources, and even then, one is the film adaptation of the book. It does not have notability since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject about the fictional creature The Ripley. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources to presume that the topic meets the general notability guideline and, on top of that, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work so there are no valid reasons to keep the it around. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGQuest

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

appears to be a self published board game. article was created by a spa account. the creater of the games article was also created by a spa account which has the "publisher's" name in its username. no evidence of notability that I can find other then author owned sites. "official site" appears to belong to author of articles. Tracer9999 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also per WP:SOAPS. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is also a stub, and does not follow any Wikipedia's criteria/style to be an article, so unless it gets formated, and expanded, it is going to get deleted. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly lacks depth to be an article. There appears to have been a failure in the wikipedia bots as portuguese wiki has a page [42]. The problem is that some wikipedia don't bother in sorting out references for games.

comment I think this game has some features that probably have some novelty. There is mentioned in the portugese article that it was covered by a magazine. I suspect that there are quite a number of sources in portuguese to find. I think that there will be mentions in RS, i.e. presumed sources what I am not sure about is whether they will have the content to prove notability.Tetron76 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 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 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtracks)

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

Orphan dab; navigation better served by hatnotes Fortdj33 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per. Also I proposed the deletion of the two following articles that are related to that disambiguation page (Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Score and Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr._&_Mrs._Smith_(2005_film)#Music - why is this even on afd? I'd do that and be done with it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 24 March 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) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry McLean

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

No independent sourcing to demonstrate notability, fair bit of primary coverage (the Belfast Telegraph appears to have republished her PR bio, etc.) but nothing independent. Essentially a question of whether a gig on Radio Ulster conveys notability that overrides WP:BASIC. If so, the article should be stubbed to only things that can be reliably read from primary sources (e.g., I'm sure she has a program on BBC Radio Ulster), if not... Reliable truly secondary sources of course welcome. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A long time national radio presenter. There is some third party coverage from the Belfast Telegraph which appears to have some depth. [43] It seems to be a feature where the let the subject write about themselves, which might appear "primary", however the publisher is secondary that decided to give her the platform.--Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has not only read, but understood, WP:PRIMARY.All too rare a thing. Grats. Anarchangel (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{}}

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Fort}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky's Happy Doo Year}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilda Reka}}