Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:00, 3 September 2011

< 2 September	4 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. assertion of notibility improved with additional reliable externals - consensus leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Townsend

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

Biographical article of a school headmaster which does not demonstrate notability. Previously ProD'd but this was removed with only one of several issues contested.

Dr Townsend may be notable within a small academic circle, but there is no demonstrating of overall notability.

Being a headmaster of a school is not, in itself, notable.

While Dr Townsend has been involved with several wider programs, none of these have been large or influential organisation. For a headmaster of any school (public or state) involvement in these programs is simply part of the job.

While I recognise this is not enough to rule out notability, a Google search for Ralph Townsend does not provide any sources beyond those from the school, from social media sites, or from articles mentioning Dr Townsend in passing.

As it stands at the moment, a majority of the article is either a) providing an unsourced description of his teaching career, or b) listing the 10 schools involved in a partnership program. The single source in the article simply confirms that he is the Headmaster of the college.

I am sure that Dr Townsend is a good headmaster who has a positive influence on those around him. But sadly he does not have the notability required for a Wikipedia article. Guycalledryan (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Guardian article referenced in the article has significant coverage of Townsend, being about his reform programme for the school, and the Tablet article has him as its subject, but I don't know how much coverage there is beyond the one fact sourced to it (a snippet can be seen here). There is also an article in Country Life about him [1] and some coverage in these news sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Headmaster of the second most famous private school in the world (the first being Eton College). Adequate notability. I don't have access to the Who's who (UK) but if he is in it that is an unambiguous keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nominator. Are you going to tell us if he is in Who's who (UK)? You should know as you presumably checked that as part of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 September 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) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stub. Headmaster of three schools is enough, and can be sourced. But the text of the article is essentially the same as his staff bio at Winchester. Archive.org only has the winchester page back to 2010 but it has been included as a link here since the creation of the article in 2007. I'm not certain it's a copyvio (if I were I'd tag it for a G12 speedy deletion) but I don't think it's appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 11 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — he is in fact listed in Debrett's People of Today, which is at least as important as who's who, and possibly better, as one can be removed from it as well as added to it: "Dr Ralph Douglas Townsend." People of Today. Debrett's Ltd., 2011. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 18 Sep. 2011. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headmasters of major public schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Debrett's People of Today includes him in their list of Britain's most distinguished figures, then he is notable. Dream Focus 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debrett's People of Today is a vanity publication with over 25,000 British entries - surely we are a bit more selective. People of Today's selection parameters are far more liberal than Wikipedia's notability criteria. The main problem with this article is that it is a direct copy from the school website. Some independent (of the school) content would solve many of its problems.John beta (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query— i'm not disputing what you say, but i'm wondering in what sense you mean that debrett's is a vanity publication? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he is the UK Who's Who, which nobody has accused of being a vanity publication? The copy-vio is an issue, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

He is in Who's Who, yes, and that is certainly not a vanity publication (although I have seen ill-informed editors describe it as such in AfDs). One is invited to be in WW - one does not apply or pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Debrett's People of Today. John beta seems to be confusing these publications with certain others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phil Bridger, I'm not confused - you nominate yourself for inclusion in Debrett's People of Today (unlike Who's Who) Under this type of business model there is an expectation that people listed will buy a copy. That said, I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate business model, and certainly not a scam. John beta (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 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 United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. That seems to be the most consensual option. Can be recreated if he meets the normal notability criteria (i.e., substantial third party coverage). Sandstein 07:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hinckley

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

Non-notable candidate for political office; no coverage found outside of the context of his campaign. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: as nominated. If this individual receives significant coverage before the election or wins the election, such a deletion should be revisited. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - a major party candidate (I'm assuming here he's the candidate and not a candidate - any idiot can be a candidate) for a national elected office. In a two party race for a national office, it's perfectly reasonable to have an article for each candidate. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never assume. ;-D He is the only DECLARED candidate at this time, but a glance at United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012 shows that there are at least five other "potential" candidates. The actual Republican candidate will be selected at a later time, --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. I did not do this boldly because I felt it would be controversial and the article was entitled to a full discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is the official Republican candidate then Redirect the standard procedure in these cases is to redirect to the relevant election article until after the election when the redirect can be reverted into an article or deleted. Hinckley doesn't appear to satisfy notability criteria, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources at this time and contrary to what Rklawton says above, being a major party candidate is not grounds for keeping an article under either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. If he is not the official republican candidate (and Melanie's comments above suggest that he isn't) then delete. Valenciano (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right on target. Quoting from our policy on notability: in the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate. The guideline references elected officials rather than just candidates. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, does that "redirect" guideline apply to EVERY declared candidate, or just to officially nominated candidates? As you noted above, any idiot can be a candidate. I'm not saying the current subject is an idiot, just that at this point he has no official role in the race. If I'm reading this correctly, the actual Republican candidate will be selected in a primary in September 2012. And if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Hinckley is not considered to be one of the front-runners for that nomination. For that reason, I am sticking with "delete" as my preferred option. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I'd read it, he was the candidate. My bad. Go with delete - and if he becomes the candidate, then relevant information goes into the article about the race per Notability. Rklawton (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder - the article used the word "the". I have changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to satisfy notability at this time, and Wikipedia does not crystal ball. Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012, per above. Even people who win the nomination are not necessarily notable, as shown in the Alabama, Kansas, and Oklahoma Senate elections in 2010. This is a clear-cut case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have often not been held notable, but this is not common sense. A nomination for a statewide office of this stature in a two party system requires a substantial public career, and its just a matter of finding sources. I'm also somewhat disturbed by the implicit violation of NPOV, in not voering political contests equally. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have the nomination. There's a valid argument to be made that everyone who gets an R/D Senate nomination is notable, even though we don't do that currently. But that criteria doesn't apply to Hinckley, because he isn't the nominee and probably never will be. -LtNOWIS (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete - clear case of nn-website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computers Guide

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

This blog doesn't seem to be notable at all, and the claim in the article that "[t]he site has earned numerous positive reviews" isn't backed up by any reliable sources. A quick Google search only reveals promotional links to the blog by the creator of it through comments on different sites and no third-party, positive reviews. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sooner rather than later. Sounds like self-promotion. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:SPIP. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:02, 4 September 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) 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Dakota Deathstrider

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

Unpublished literature lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had a problem with my friend editing the page, It was supposed to say 2nd of MAY not the 2nd of september, I am rectifying the problem. Fopnor (talk) 12:07 4th September 2011 (UTC)
Delete: The article says that the writing started on September 2 for the first book. SL93 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SL93. These books only started to be written yesterday. The article can be re-created after they are actually published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BOOK. Come back when they are published and become New York Times bestsellers. Edison (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. No speedy criterion applies, but SNOW soon would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Could possibly have been G3'd (a "series of 5 books" of which none of the books exists). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 4 September 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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vanderhorst

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. I can't find substantial coverage of this artist in reliable sources. All I can find are a number of press releases and a single article in the Toronto Star [2]. I infer any notoriety he has achieved is due more to his association with Nash the Slash than his art. Pburka (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidence of notability seems very marginal. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search turns up no 3rd party mentions of himCurb Chain (talk) 04:58, 10 September 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) 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of decision software

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

A list with external links only. No evidence of notability. Possibly spam for one supplier. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PROMO, pure spam.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 September 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, BusterD (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above; no reliable sources; linkfarm of spam external links. Dialectric (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Dzlife (talk) 13:39, 16 September 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 per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauran Irion

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

Young actress with only minor roles - her parts aren't mentioned at all on the show pages - ie Gia Jenkins isn't even listed as a minor or recurring character on the I'm in the Band article. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove general notability. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources, not notable as per WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Luke (Talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, and also essentially violates WP:BLP, since IMDb is not considered an RS. Moogwrench (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. Her roles not being mentioned on some other user-edited page in a self-admitted unreliable source is not a criteria for deletion. A possible WP:BLP violation is of less a concern when sources DO exit that can at least verify her work, such as Futon Critic mentioning her in context to her latest series.[3] HOWEVER, her short career fails WP:ENT, and the lack of proper coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 3 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayesslee

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

No RS are present in article nor were found in search to support notability, which went beyond simple web content (the YouTube channel) and looked for references to the Jance and Sonia Lee themselves. Moogwrench (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 September 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) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find any independent sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, WP:PROMOTION & WP:NOTDIR Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 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 (obviously notable, no point in waiting longer) Zero^talk 07:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Riskin

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

This is person is not notable. This reads like a resume/advertisement. He does not appear to meet basic notability guidelines for Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. He appears to have business relationship with the few biased sources actually cited. --Mmhmm613 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Person is notable, as one of the most important Modern Orthodox Jewish rabbis. He was the Chief rabbi of Efrat, Founder of a network of high schools and colleges, chairman of Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, and more. He is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, such as "A circle in the square: Rabbi Shlomo Riskin reinvents the synagogue" by Edward Abramson, and other books cited in the the article. I agree the article can be improved to sound less like a resume. Marokwitz (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- having been chief rabbi of Efrat is sufficient for notability, and there is more besides. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding? Shlomo Riskin is a well-known leader of Modern Orthodox Judaism, founder of a well-known New York Orthodox synagogue, chief rabbi of Efrat, and is often in the news as he leads settler protests in the West Bank – e.g. Rabbi Takes U.S.-Style Protest to Israel (NY Times); Candidly Speaking: The Incredible Shlomo Riskin (Jerusalem Post). The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gimme a break. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep / Investigate Nomainator The article provides a clear claim of notability and multiple reliable and verifiable sources are included. Hundreds more sources and some of the many books he has written would only pile on to the obvious case of notability. The bigger issue here is why we tolerate an WP:SPA the abuse of a well-defined process that requires a nominator to look for sources to support notability before staring an AfD. Here we have an editor who has no other edits to any other article doing an excellent job of nominating this one article for deletion. A speedy keep followed by a sockpuppet investigation / block would appear to be the appropriate course of action here. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because this sourced and referenced article (see the "Find sources: "Shlomo Riskin" – news · books · scholar" for a plethora of RS etc etc etc), as it's about one of the most famous living Modern Orthodox Judaism rabbis known universally in the USA and Israel. This nomination is utterly bizarre, coming as it does from an unknown who just joined today [4], made a couple of contentious edits to the article, and then decides to nominate it for deletion. Fully agree with User Alansohn (talk · contribs) above that the nominator be investigated for the reasons stated. IZAK (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there does appear to be some unsourced material in this fellow's article, just looking at his achievements seems to verify that he is a notable individual. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 04:18, 4 September 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 both by Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) per A9, music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Lesson in Dying

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

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS. It was nominated for afd before, see WP:Articles for deletion/Dopamine (band). Mattg82 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Auditioning My Escape Plan for the same reason. Mattg82 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 3 September 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) 00:45, 10 September 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. v/r - T P 16:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwangwoon Electronic Technical High School

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

Notability unclear. Cannot find any English language references for the school. No interwiki. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Nominator - Monty ₈₄₅ opposed my speedy deletion article. He explains that Criteria A7 does not apply to schools. While the notability guidelines do technically apply, High schools are generally not deleted at AfD, as most high schools are at least minimally notable (see here). I can't imagine this is really true. Is there any policy which supports that? Surely there are non-notable high schools out there. I'm finding it tough to immediately verify this place is even real. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) for an essay explaining why it is rare for a high school article to be deleted under the notability guidelines. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Monty ₈₄₅ 16:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edited to add" given reliable sourcing to verify the existence and enrollment") Countless AFDs have established a de fact notability for high schools, at least for large ones such as this. The exception might be home schools or tiny unknown private schools. Verifiability is the only practical requirement. Notability guidelines should be descriptions of the practice at AFDs , where the community has !voted in favor of high schools being notable. There is a lot of institutional inertia and "ownership" in some guidelines, resulting in the confusion expressed by the nominator with not seeing notability of high schools codified. Guideline talk pages often have a very small number of editors not agreeing with the consensus of the many, and resistant to changing or adding to guidelines to make them an accurate descripotion of practice. Edison (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how to you know this is a "large" school? NickCT (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my concern is to exclude tiny random faux high schools, such as a home school with 4 students taught by their Mom, or a private school in the church basement with 6 students from 2 families taught by the Pastor or a volunteer. This school has over 1100 attendance, per the infobox, although a reliable source should be included to verify that; certainly not the largest school in the world, but not a tiny faux school either. English language sources are not that great, per Google:[5]. A Wikipedia biography, not a reliable source by our own standards, says that an individual [[Kim Pyung-Seok], soccer player, attended the school and later coached there. I've added a verification requirement to my "keep" !vote. Edison (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - re per the infobox, although a reliable source should be included to verify that; - That's really my main concern. I'm finding this place difficult to even to verify. If we could find even 1 solid RS, I'd feel significantly better about the article. NickCT (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - experience shows that high schools meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. We need to avoid systemic bias by allowing ample time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Exists and has some minor coverage about it in Korean. Homepage. News report (from YTN) about an open house they held. Another news report about their building being borrowed to host the national tax accountancy exam this year. But NickCT is hardly at fault for being suspicious about this article as it stood at the time of nomination, since there's nothing reliable in English even verifying that the place exists, and the creator could not be bothered to include the Korean name. cab (call) 03:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Nominator - Ok... Well, seeing the developing consensus, I'm feeling a little more neutral about this. Still feel a little awkward that this place is so difficult to verify and yet we're willing to keep it. That said, I wouldn't oppose a "close as keep" at this point. Thanks to CaliforniaAliBaba for some good researching, and for acknowledging that I had a point. NickCT (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was fine to nominate it. Just tagging it "references needed" has rarely moved anyone to start looking for and adding references from foreign language sources. Isn't there a Wiki page or project which can translate things? Could they be asked to find references in a case such as this? As an exercise, I tried Google translating the name of the school into Korean, and lots of Korean websites popped up, but Google translating them back into English showed that they were cases where any of the words in the name appeared in the website. I'm not sure if putting quotes around the name of the school and Google translating that would prevent the extraneous search results. It would be very easy to pick a more obscure language and invent a high school, licensed broadcast station, legislator, or professional sports player (all of which seem to get de facto notability in AFD) with some invented offline print references, or with cites of things not proved by foreign language references. A since-banned editor made wild claims from Hungarian sources for Anyos Jedlik's invention of the Electric motor, for instance, and there may be still some excessive claims in the articles. Edison (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I'll not deny that most high schools reach the threshold notability, but we still delete articles that don't have references, and this one doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable high school. Keb25 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 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 the consensus that the subject is a current Minor League manager of a notable team, which contradicts the argument that the only assertion of notability is inherited. Steven Walling • talk 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Mauer

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

Notability is not inherited. He is best known for being related to a famous person. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly because I don't like deleting the pages of current minor league managers. His college career seems fairly notable also. Seems like the sources exist to make this a better article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. Minor league managers aren't inherently notable. His college career: maybe, but I feel like many college players who aren't notable have similar collegiate careers. Ask yourself: would this person have a page if he wasn't Joe Mauer's brother? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uneasy keep The coaching career is what pushes me into keep territory. There are at least some citations already establishing notability and given his career I imagine there are more. Also, while I agree with Muboshgu that this MiL career wouldn't be enough by itself, I disagree that being related to someone can't be a part of notability. See virtually any First Lady article, Billy Carter, Tommie Aaron (not a perfect example since he did reach the majors, he was just terrible there), etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED, you see that it makes specific mention of the First Lady of the United States, because it is an actual defined role. There is no such thing as Lesser brother of a Major League Baseball star. As you said, Aaron's brother made it to the show. Billy Carter had notability on his own that wouldn't have happened without Jimmy, but is clearly independent of Jimmy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Jake Mauer had notability as well, much like Billy. He might not have gotten the shot without the big name brother, but he is a guy with a semi-notable college career and now a decent MiL coaching career. Like I said, I'm not in love with keeping the article (since I'm in part acting on faith that there is more sourcing out there for his coaching), but I think there's enough here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:11, 23 August 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, BusterD (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Mauer, otherwise Delete Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for his playing career unless there is mention of his more famous brother, in which case the articles become a compare/contrast of the two or discusses there relationship growing up. Since he doesnt meet WP:GNG on his own, it make sense to merge him where his story has the most WP:IMPACT and where his notability is WP:INHERITED—his brother. Does not merit a stand-alone article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 2 September 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd relist reason: article is a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:08, 3 September 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 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dating Guy

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

Non-notable show. Was deleted by a PROD earlier this year, and then recreated by a sock of a banned user. I'm bringing this here rather than reprodding or CSD because I'd rather there's a community discussion. Ged UK 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked through GNews and a general Google web search and not found much of anything. The only mentions of the show are a single sentence (occasionally two), but always in articles discussing the Teletoon channel as a whole, including all of its other shows. Teletoon is notable, but, for now, this show doesn't seem to be. It needs to get some reviews from mainstream sources before it will meet our criteria. Silver seren^C 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is nothing but cruft, and without any revelations of significant, published discussion there is no notability. A redirect, maybe--but perhaps this needs to be salted. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're talking about a multi-season television show on a major cable channel. See [6] and [7] for examples of media coverage. At the very least, this could be merged to the production company behind the program, marblemedia. Pburka (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links could possibly be considered to be 'significant coverage'. Ged UK 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Here's a better article: [8]. Pburka (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's very in-universe, to say the least! It supports the fact that the show exists, that is true, but I don't think that was ever in doubt... Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by reliable publications. Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:39, 5 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh Entertainment Centre

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

Does not seem notable Only one hit on G News [9] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no indication of wp:notability or notability. From it's own description it looks like it was just a 5 screen movie theater, now defunct. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, run-down building. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, Jclemens's merge proposal has merit but first the episode list article should be reformated to allow episode summaries. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think Like a Dinosaur (The Outer Limits)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, for lack of third-party sources to substantiate stand-alone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of articles per stale merge proposal on article page and per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was able to find several secondary sources which would be helpful in turning this into a decent sourced article. — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 30 August 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, BusterD (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cirt Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 3 September 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. v/r - T P 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto dos Livros

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. 7 gnews hits merely confirms its existence [1]. no evidence of high chart listing Oo7565 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 August 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) 00:24, 27 August 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, BusterD (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 7 September 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. v/r - T P 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salangaiattam

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

This is an irrelevant article. Either user should have created it in sand box and would have search for references. Day000Walker (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least under this name, it appears to be unverifiable and doesn't meet the notability guideline. Using google I could find one trivial mention of a folk dance under this name, from a source of questionable reliability. There also appears to be a group called Salangai Attam, but that would be a different article. --Beloved Freak 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an irrelevant article, but at this point finding online sources is going to be difficult and there's really nothing to write a sourced stub. It's a fairly popular folk dance, and any study of it etc will be in Tamil books only (Gbooks doesn't have). What I've been able to find online are just program listings in newspapers "xyz is performing Salangai Aattam at abc" or program reviews "this included a performance of Salangai Aattam" and so on. If anyone else has better luck, I'm adding the Tamil search string below. —SpacemanSpiff 08:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The article should have been created in sandbox, developed to meet Wikipedia standards. The contributor should have made effort to search references. I strongly recommend deletion. The contributor should seek help from Tamil wiki teams and try to publish finished articles. Searched a lot on internet still unable to find supporting ref. May god bless Wikipedia--Day000Walker (talk) 18:35, 8 September 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. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yareah Magazine

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

I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything that's both notable and third-party aside from blogs, but anyone else is welcome to try and find sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 September 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, v/r - T P 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There do seem to be a few sources out there, but none reliable enough to assure notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:12, 10 September 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 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia De Sciglio

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

Fails WP:GNG. Plus, this guy has not yet made any appearances in professional games. Luxic (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Luxic (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:34, 4 September 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 article deleted by admin Acroterion with reason "Mass deletion of pages added by Greenencyclo". (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie MacMillan

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

No notability per WP:NGRIDIRON Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:30, 3 September 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 article deleted by admin Acroterion with reason "Mass deletion of pages added by Greenencyclo". (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Langford (footballer)

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

No notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mombasa cottages

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

No notability established. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:17, 3 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdu'r-Rahman-i-Talabani

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

Delete as unsourced, non-notable article stub. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 September 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, v/r - T P 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closing out as uncontested. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:BIO. No sources to establish notability.--Slon02 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 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) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kohinoor One

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

I found zero significant coverage for this mall. SL93 (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe that if it hasn't shown any good change since it's birth in July 2006, then I doubt it'll be any different if we keep it for another year or two. I didn't find any notable coverage on this mall, so I guess not many news outlets covered (at least that we know of). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 September 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, v/r - T P 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mall, fails notability criteria. Keb25 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 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. v/r - T P 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Schwarzmann

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

Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. No indication that subject meets topical notability guidelines for authors. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this would mean I need to provide extra media coverage for Schwarzmann's book rather than just a publishers website? --Portions100 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling, I couldn't find anything useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn b/c search revealed no 3rd party refs/mentionsCurb Chain (talk) 05:15, 10 September 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 Epic Mickey. v/r - T P 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mickey 2

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

Article that announces a game for sometime 2012, unsourced WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. WP:SPECULATION Ben Ben (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epic Mickey This is very much in rumour territory at the minute ([10]) and anything could happen, so a separate article at this time is premature. A section within the original game's article could cover any developments on this sequel until things get more concrete and it can be spun out. Someone another 16:23, 3 September 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) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. Until there is any kind of press release, there is no need for this article at all or anything that suggests it's coming. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epic Mickey, and hopefully someone can add a blurb to Epic Mickey about the rumor. The rumor was picked up by ever major gaming news site out there. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Odie. Needs to be a small section of the original article until there's more content. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 9 September 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 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Greek and Hindu Gods

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

The article suffers from multiple issues: WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Though there have been comparisons between Greek and Hindu deities and mythological figures, in the current form, the article needs a complete rewrite to read like an encyclopaedia entry, rather than an OR essay. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup — it is our policy to improve articles in mainspace. If the nominator thinks he can do better then he is free to perform a complete rewrite using ordinary editing tools. Here's a source to help the matter forward. Warden (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here which is encyclopedic to merit cleanup. Appears to be largely original research, since no inline citations to reliable sources are provided when the article says "this god is like that other god because both have X and Y and do Z." There could be an article comparing two suchreligions, since comparative religion has a long scholarly history, but there does not appear to be salvageable content in this essay. Edison (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison. There is nothing salvageable from the current content.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced original research, nothing here to save. As well, since most of the article consists of "X and Y both control Z natural phenomenon," I question whether it would need to exist even if sourced and rewritten, since that is why Category:Sky and weather gods etc. exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable original research/synthesis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly pointless, and some very glaring mistakes to boot (Yama, for instance, is said to be lord of the Underworld like Hades when in fact he is the God Of Death and Lord Of Justice) I didn't even bother correcting it; what's the point? Also, the vote seems pretty clear, it's time to move on a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiraj121 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup might be possible but I suspect it would be a massive timesink. A long series of comparisons just invite masses of OR anyway. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny idea! But seems worth only a fantasy. DELETE it! Or else they will just start comparing Prime Ministers of different countries just for their commonness of being PMs. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:CONTENT FORK~~WP:CONTENTFORK; no reason why this should exist as this is just a compendium of information in a sidebyside comparsion formatCurb Chain (talk) 03:49, 10 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banna banna da Loka

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

Contested PROD. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as I was able to find only one reliable source. The rest were blogs or Youtube videos. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:57, 3 September 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, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense). The presense of wikifications doesn't mean the subject exists in the first place. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - Almost all sources provided are blogs or other self-published content Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No indication of wP;notability, nothing in the text suggest it. Side note: 24 red links in a near-stub length article. A new record. 02:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Irrelevant. - DonCalo (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense article. Keb25 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bazj (talk) 14:00, 16 September 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 a3, no substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxing out

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

Wikipedia is not for neologisms -- $Σ talk contribs$ 08:03, 3 September 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 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Palarimath

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

No indication of WP:notability. Sources given are either not there or trivial mentions. Google does not show anything. noq (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:SCHOLAR. The entire article appears to an autobiography WP:AUTO WP:COI created by the subject and a small number of socks and meats WP:SOCK WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. The two ISBN numbers given for the subject's books don't even appear to be real and cannot be confirmed through usual searches. Nothing turns up under Google, including Google scholar and Google books. Msnicki (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unremarkable deparmental headCurb Chain (talk) 05:23, 10 September 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 a1, foreign language article that makes no sense when translated. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

უელსოფობია

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

Machine translation (courtesy of Google):

Uelsopobia, is in the uelsobisa, ie the fact that the time will come when uadamiano (linear sense) in the environment, to appear, stop the personal development and slow - slow start in recession. For the first time the disease was observed in 2011 (he was described by two scientists, whose names and surnames of the name of the article's author, many mizizta due mizazshetsnoilad not think), umtkitsesi suppose it ukurnebelia, but certainly nothing to say, because the disease is the only such case in the old medical books in the display, therefore not to give further someone is always accompanied by a patient, this is what he says himself uelsopobi _ "nice to Kia, never be afraid but I have this fear of the opposite (perhaps because of) attempts have been continuously developed, it can be such things but before that he could not see, after he, himself of the disease are noticed, is Self-where I started, I think it better where it became my goal imaginable leed Behavior is the way that him and me between zero difference to be, in addition to gadavarchino humanity to create new ideals, humanoidebi and animals as possible mivuakhlovo each other (not daavakhlovo), make for what they had was unacceptable, but he wanted everyone to mirror chavakhedo They give a chance to improve after admianeb together leave this planet, and I elsi create a new seat, where animals, plants, "Adam's children," and animals Martyr, humanoidebi are eligible to apply. "The patients themselves to treatment and other ekimaa concluded that although uelsopobi sheshlia that, but it is not the truth, and it is very challenging to phobias, it is not (Mr. or PCs).

Wikipedia is not the place for essays and opinions. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:50, 3 September 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 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Morris (historian)

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

Article was created by the subject in 2009 and has remained as an unreferenced biography of a living person ever since. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the subject's notability, which I find surprising, given the number of articles quoted. Only sources availble online appear to be self-published. This needs more eyes on it. CharlieDelta (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete — clearly fails WP:PROF. i can't even construct a google scholar search that picks out this guy's work. his publications are almost uniformly from the ensign (see also wp article Ensign (LDS magazine)), which is not a scholarly journal even in the circumscribed area of mormon self-scholarship. since wp:prof doesn't apply, he'd need to satisfy gng, but he clearly does not. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails Wikipedia:GNGTeapotgeorge^Talk 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point he is a long way from being notable. He has only published in church-sponsored publications, does not appear to have an academic appointment anywhere, and only got his PhD last year.[11] --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 4 September 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. v/r - T P 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Estate Net Worth

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

The value of Michael Jackson's estate is not worth an article of its own, especially this SOAPy screed about how "the mainstream media isn't reporting the true value of the Michael Jackson estate..." szyslak (t) 07:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly unnecessary. I suggest the info be copied to Michael Jackson. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here but original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable article. It need only little bit fix. --BadMuroZ (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what would be left after a clean-up and delete the rest. Not notable as a stand-alone article.TMCk (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sorts of issues, but among them is the article's self confessed non-reliance on "mainstream media"- and which seems to SYNTH an approximation from certain sources... but none of them are actually verifying the overall context or figures. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge information if possible. Aside from the high level of WP:OR there is no evidence of notability for a separate article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 9 September 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 a7, nothing on IMDB, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Semoni

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

Speedy A7 tag removed by a third party. Actress, only minor roles are asserted in the article. No references. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:22, 3 September 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 Michigan_State_University#Student_organizations. v/r - T P 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Guard

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

This student group lacks notability. All that should be said about the group is already in the university article. Thus, no merge to do, thus, deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the time being to merge relevant data into the Michigan State University article. I merged some data to the MSU article about the group being focused on helping people with disabilities, which wasn't in the MSU article before. This helped to clarify and be more specific regarding the group's focus in the MSU article.Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is this a vote for Keep or Merge? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per message above:
Merge - (This isn't a second nomination, just a clarification to the above). Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief, cited mention (one or two sentences) in the main Michigan State University article might be appropriate. I would not object to a redirect, but it's not a particularly useful one. Neutrality^talk 07:41, 5 September 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 Deleted by Keegan (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth botte. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth botte

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

Speedy A7 template removed by an IP without addressing the issue. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as promotional. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Funky Psycho Boogie Thang

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

No evident signs of notability for this band. This article seems more of a promotion for the Mr. Hedges listed in the article. Only source given is Mr. Hedges website. Delete. Safiel (talk) 04:17, 3 September 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. v/r - T P 00:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California

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

previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Teenage California resulted in deletion. still no significant coverage outside the pageant itself. i tried to find adequate references to show notability, and i dont think i succeeded. only other significant editor is an SPA that hasnt been able to show notability. Article creator is also an SPA, who recreated this after deletion, and created article for a pageant placer, hence their username.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the competition that is the subject of this article has been mentioned in the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and San Diego Union Tribube. All are reliable sources; that being said whether any of those articles are indepth enough to be considered "significant coverage" is debateable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there are ten passing mentions of the competition in books. As with the news mentions, it is debateable whether any are indepth enough to be considered "significant coverage". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 7 September 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, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statewide competition in the largest state in the country which has run for 33 years. How can that not meet notability. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails on notability if no independent third party coverage can be found and put into the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly, The standard is "has received" rather than "in the article".....of course "in the article" is the best way to resolve that. My comment was based on likelyhood of "has received" North8000 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Keep. --Beastphones (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, significant sources to establish notability in the article or that I could find. The parent pageants don't have an article so I went a looking... There are no Google News hits for "Miss Collegiate America Pageant", "Miss Collegiate America", "Miss High School America" or "Miss High School America Pageant." Couldn't find any reliable, significant sources for the parent pageants either. I went looking at how many beauty pageants for the state of California there are (not local or county, but state level)... I stopped counting at 50. Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep" This teen pageant is the most well-known state teen pageant in California for over three decades. Hard to follow this thread. One needs to be a scientist specialized in Wikipedia. As a layman it's impossible to do so.

Miss High School America and Miss Collegiate America website can be found at http://www.americashighschoolpageant.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.123.196 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California is featured in the book "Girl Power," published by Grand Central Publishing/1995. The author- Hillary Carlip. An entire chapter is devoted to her serving as a judge for the Miss Teenage California Pageant. Former Miss Teenage California 1994 is featured on the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laceydog (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 September 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 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Calibur (artist)

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

This appears to be a promotional piece for a non-notable musician. LadyofShalott 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than promotional material, reads like an ad. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There weren't any notable sources on Google and Yahoo, and not to mention it would be need be rewritten and wikified.SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD had not been listed in the daily logs, so I've added it just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, mea culpa. Thanks for fixing it. LadyofShalott 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage in my opinion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources in the article have significant coverage and I found none also. SL93 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eww, that's awful and it fails WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 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. 08:43, 8 September 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anthony S Adams" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:A2adams - please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony S Adams

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

Article was possibly created by the subject itself. There is very little citations that adhere to WP:RS and uses PR websites as sources.

PR Websites are references directed to actaul issued press releases of relevent and notability.

Additional policy WP:NOTFACEBOOK applies as well. Phearson (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please define reasoning for WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Currently not in agreement.

Delete Google searches yielded scrappy references. No indication of notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Delete on the ground that the article defines notability and the references substanciate. Just another quick push to delete...

Advocating for removal from list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions discussion.

PR references are not reliable sources, which do nothing but promote for the dollar. Phearson (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 7 September 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 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naohiro Takahashi

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

nonnotable. The only notability claim is taking part in some contests. The mentioned contests he was not top winner. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non-notable. Google searches indicated no significant coverage. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 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. v/r - T P 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlashPunk

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

Declined prod. Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Sudo Ghost 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I could not find any reliable sources referencing the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you guys are deleting FlashPunk, but not Flixel. They're very similar products, and their pages are nearly identical, with the FlashPunk page having more content than the Flixel page. The FlashPunk and Flixel 3rd party references are nearly identical, too:

FP:
Official website
FlashPunk wiki at FlashGameDojo.com
Source on GitHub
Interview about FlashPunk at DigitalTools

Flixel:
Official website
Flixel wiki at FlashGameDojo.com
Source on GitHub
Official Flixel wiki on GitHub
Interview about Flixel v1.1 at DigitalTools.com

Only difference is Flixel's wiki is uploaded to. I could add FP's wiki if I wanted to, but I don't see how that's a 3rd-party reference as both wiki's are created by the library creators. What makes Flixel's article more notable than FP's? Bretboy129 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't addressing any other article, that other stuff exists is not addressing why this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. - Sudo Ghost 03:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is noteworthy as a freeware, open-source program available on the Internet. The Flashpunk website has a forum with thousands of posts on it, which is noteworthy as to the significance the application. The article is also noteworthy as an encyclopedic reference regarding the availability of freeware and open source programs, and how the Internet continues to evolve. Furthermore, the Flixel article is a notable comparison, because both platforms are very similar, and the "Other Stuff Exists" webpage is an essay, not official Wikipedia policy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also a Google search returns numerous websites regarding Flashpunk, which correlates with the subject's overall notability; click here for Google search results. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being nominated for deletion for failing to meet the WP:N guideline. WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are not policy but are meant to explain to you why your support to keep the article is incorrectly stated per WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep argument fails to demonstrate why the article is notable, simply because it is a freeware open-source program is not sufficient. The Google search return is useless as a keep argument, as none of the results are reliable, third-party sources, most are random blogs. As for the other stuff exists essay, ignoring it would be valid if the article was proven to be notable, but that is not the case. - Sudo Ghost 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. One interview does not notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This application will likely never receive significant press in mass media. Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Continue, and delete all articles about open source software too that are ignored in mass media. What will be left in Wikipedia is software produced only by corporations, and articles will be based upon corporate lobbyists influencing mass media to report about their latest innovations. For examples, refer to: iPod, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe Systems and many others that have significant advertising budgets for national and international advertising campaigns. The rest will fail WP:GNG because they're not available in Google news. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, we should allow garage bands to have articles, simply because they're garage bands. Why should bands that have advertising or labels be the only bands that are allowed to have articles?

Articles about open-source software exist that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, such as Warsow (video game), GIMP, Arch Linux, and many, many others. None of these are produced by corporations with "lobbyists influencing mass media", nor do they have significant (or any) advertising budgets. In fact, none of these examples are produced by corporations at all. We cannot give exceptions to Wikipedia's notability guidelines simply because the software is free. I'm all about open source software and the freedom of information, but that's exactly why Wikipedia's notability guidelines are so important, because if every piece of open source software or freeware was allowed an article simply because of that criteria, it would dilute the encyclopedia into a repository of crap software, and that's not what Wikipedia is. - Sudo Ghost 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Refer to the discussion page of the FlashPunk article here for more information. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said the same thing above, and SudoGhost has already responded to it. Simply repeating it doesn't accomplish anything. LadyofShalott 12:22, 8 September 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 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimizing dictionary

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

I found zero sources for this term. The source in the article is offline. See Maximizing dictionary AfD also. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": They both appear to be a neologism by Sandro Nielsen. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COnfirmed lack of any usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, leaning delete Not sure if it's received significant coverage. Can't see this article get past stub class. At the very least it should be incorporated into Dictionary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the expression was commonly used all this and the other article does is define this aspect of dictionaries.Borock (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 7 September 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 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximizing dictionary

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

I found zero sources for this term. The only source in the article is offline. See Minimizing dictionary AfD also. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": They both appear to be a neologism by Sandro Nielsen. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COnfirmed lack of any usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, leaning delete Not sure if it's received significant coverage. Can't see this article get past stub class. At the very least it should be incorporated into Dictionary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the expression was commonly used all this and the other article does is define this aspect of dictionaries.Borock (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 7 September 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 as nomination withdrawn with no countervailing delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux International School

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

~~Stub created in 2008. No secondary sources or indications of notability.~~ Racconish^Tk 02:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TerriersFan is right. I wish to withdraw my nomination in view of this article and this video.Racconish^Tk 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - experience shows that high schools meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. We need to avoid systemic bias by allowing ample time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 4 September 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 16:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World of Books Ltd

AfDs for this article:

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

Commercial in nature. Notability is questionable, and lacks significance. Phearson (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - received significant coverage in a national UK newspaper (the Daily Telegraph). Also, per Warden, the last debate closed too recently. --S Larctia (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We already had an AFD for this two days ago. Warden (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This article was created from a single-purpose account, suggesting a conflict of interest and a reason for the article being commercial in nature. Dolphin (t) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was created for commercial reasons doesn't suggest anything about the notability of the subject. The article is written with a neutral point of view. --S Larctia (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears to relate to a single round of positive coverage probably generated by a PR person. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close Phearson wanted to delete it in the last AFD which ended two days before he opened this one. Not getting your way is not a valid reason to start another AFD. Dream Focus 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find significant coverage to indicate this company meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. As for the quick re-nom, I don't think that it was ideal, however it still does not change the situation with regard to notability. Mt king ^(edits) 08:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this did qualify for a speedy keep as nominating an article two days after an closed AFD without a deletion review) is highly discouraged, and considered disruptive. I decided to look closely at the sources before deciding. The first source is most likely a press release, as there was no author named in the article and researching further the Trade Month articles come from the UK Trade & Investment website, which is a government website that helps UK buinesses expand and grow. So that source is not independent of the subject. The second and third sources are clear press releases from press release websites, not independent neither. The fourth release can be considered "independent" from the subject but it's a local newspaper award, which isn't a claim of notability.

As a result having one local source is discouraged by the wording of WP:CORP, and the other three sources violate our policy on self-published sources, and considering those (and a few more press releases) were the only sources I found on google, the company should be deleted. Secret ^account 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable book company, I purchased several books from them myself via amazon market place, which I then used to improve Wikipedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you bought serveral books from the company doesn't mean it's notable, there are thousands of book companies about the same size as this in Amazon (maybe without the press releases but still). Secret ^account 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm told by the previous closing administrator on his talk page, that he won't just speedy close this. Those who say keep please copy over your past rational so they'll count it in this one. With coverage like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/uk-trade-investment/6385885/Trade-Month-World-of-Books-business-is-booming-but-it-needs-to-start-making-a-profit.html I don't see how anyone can doubt its notability. Dream Focus 19:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just rebutted that it's not The Telegram article, it's a UK Trade & Investment press release that was redistributed by The Telegram, defiantly not an independent source. Secret ^account 02:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, its independent source, since they are independent of the book company. "Trade Month: UK Trade & Investment In association with UK Trade & Investment, the Telegraph presents a series looking at the opportunities for UK exporters." Dream Focus 04:57, 10 September 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. v/r - T P 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rupin Kahlon

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The album Folk Addiction is a part of this AfD also. Being in the number 10 spot on a download chart does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The creator of the articles was only notified about the primary article, and did not receive a notice on Folk Addiction. (notification now provided) Monty ₈₄₅ 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:28, 27 August 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) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the chart listed doesn't seem to be reputable one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:14, 3 September 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. Many thanks to frankie for digging for sources. While the club might have met the notability guideline, there is no evidence in this AFD that that can be verified by sources. causa sui (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Atlético Palermo

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy notability. Divide et Impera (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 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, v/r - T P 15:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any reliable, third-party sources to suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English language sources aren't readily available, as far as I can tell. But both the Italian and Spanish language versions of the article are pretty lengthy, so there might be something to this. I'd feel a lot better if someone from Argentina would chime in. (I left a message at the Argentine Wikiproject.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered !voting keep and adding Template:Expand Spanish on the article to get a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article. However, it seems WP:CIRCULAR to rely on another Wikipedia article, especially when I am not fluent enough in Spanish to determine if the references are considered reliable. Another negative is the Spanish article doesnt have many footnotes, relying mostly on External Links. I have no problem if someone has confidence in the Spanish sources and thinks a translation would benefit the English article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There isn't much available for notability, but I feel the place is effectively treated as historically significant by the news hits, and these two book hits [12] [13] suggest the same, and given that the club saw it's prime day during the 50's, there might be some more content available offline. The article from the Spanish Wikipedia is very thorough, but none of the information is supported by the sources (given that there are none). The Italian version is more discrete and better referenced, and had this link [14] to confirm the club's participation in Primera División in 1920. The club's history as presented by the city's government is very short [15], but it describes it as having been a precursor in Soccer, "the most outstanding, together with Club Gimnasia y Esgrima, in Basketball", and also the stage for notorious Milonga orchestras — frankie (talk) 15:49, 14 September 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) 00:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Trooper (card game)

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

Unremarkable card game per WP:N Dengero (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 August 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) 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability, no references. Might just as well be made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 05:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be made up. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gosh no. No explanation needed. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 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) 02:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2

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

Going through edits by an editor blocked for Copyvio after another OTRS complaint today, I came across this. No evidence of notability, from what little I could find it was panned. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been asked to remove the deletion tag as sources have been added, but they don't seem to meet our criteria at WP:MOVIE. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Added details to the article like film Plot, references, Cast, Image, Reception etc. for Notability.
Anish Viswa 04:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 August 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) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:58, 3 September 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) 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wp:notability looks borderline. Newer article, see if it adds more wp:notability related material/refs (if such is available) North8000 (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search only shows one result, that a film review from Yentha. There are sources now in the article though. Someone with a knowledge of India film can comment on this. The cast have blue links to their names, so its something that had real actors. Dream Focus 00:58, 12 September 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) 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Paper Tickets

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. I only found a bunch of press releases on Google News. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 August 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) 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found one decent article to back it up. Certainly not significant coverage. tedder (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage. No indication of importance in the field. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Xyz or die (talk) 08:44, 5 September 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. v/r - T P 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port Vila Vanuatu earthquakes

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

Non notable earthquake; no damage. Diego talk 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a more detailed reason ? Diego talk 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user who proposed deletion of this article, Diego Grez, stated that the sole reason for the earthquake's lack of notability was "no damage". This is not the sole criterion upon which an earthquake is deemed to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

This article meets the [notability guideline] for [events] because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have a significant consequence? Most earthquakes which are felt in a large area are often reported my media from all around the world; that doesn't grants 'notability' IMO. Also, you can simply call me Diego; for a reason I'm only using my name in my signature. Diego talk 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Port Vila earthquakes had significant consequence. However I will note that these two earthquakes (magnitude 7.1 and 7.0) were the largest earthquakes on the planet in August 2011. Even if there was not much damage, the magnitude suggests that they are notable. Also as noted above, there were numerous articles about the earthquakes in sources from many different countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude doesn't give automatical (not sure if that's an actual word) notability; and being the strongest tremor in X month and Y year certainly doesn't either. Diego talk 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the magnitude, combined with it being the biggest earthquake for August, combined with the hundreds of sources in various countries and continents are the reasons why this earthquake meets notability criteria. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An earthquake of magnitude 7.2 in Fox Islands, Alaska, the strongest in June 2011 according to the same article you linked to, doesn't have its article, even when it was covered by several sources. Why? Because it didn't have significant consequence. This Vanuatu earthquake didn't have either, that's why it isn't notable. Being widely covered, being of certain magnitude and being the strongest quake of an X month doesn't guarantee notability. Diego talk 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The "widely covered" criteria comes straight from the Wikipedia general notability guideline and the notability guideline for events because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Your discussion regarding the Alaska earthquake is not relevant to the discussion about the Port Vila earthquake article. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NNEWS, particularly WP:INDEPTH. If widespread of coverage was all that was needed Christina Desforges would still have an article (view that AfD). Big earthquakes get reported all around the world, but they're just news unless they have a lasting impact.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 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) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The earthquake is notable as a significant geological event in 2011. Also, retaining the article can be beneficial as an encyclopedic reference regarding the event, and for the creation of new articles.Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquakes are common around the Pacific rim, this one had no major consequence of any sort.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add it could be mentioned in a list of earthquakes article, but there's nothing to write about in terms of a stand-alone article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, a spate of news articles at the time does not confer notability. We need sustained coverage and these earthquakes just didn't get any, or at least not enough for a stand-alone article. Big Dom 06:33, 10 September 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 Already redirected.. v/r - T P 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down for Whatever

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

Not enough info for stand on its own, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Sauloviegas (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album), the parent album. The reliably-sourced content that currently exists (second UK single, co-produced by RedOne, Jimmy Joker and The WAV.s) is already covered in the album article. I can find no significant/in-depth coverage for the song; appears to fail WP:NSONGS. A redirect seems appropriate until such coverage emerges. Gongshow ^Talk 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:15, 27 August 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) 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per above Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:53, 7 September 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. v/r - T P 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong at the Heart

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

Does not assert notability. The book doesn't seem to be in print any more (Amazon only lists used copies) and the webpage we link to was last updated in 2005. I was not able to find any meaningful coverage through Google Books and Google Scholar. Matt Deres (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is the second AFD for this article. The previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong at the Heart: How it feels to heal from sexual abuse. The article was moved and the AFD record in the discussion page pointed to the wrong place as a result of the move. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I saw the redlink to the deletion discussion, but didn't really twig to what had happened. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a review at doi:10.1353/bcc.2006.0012, but I don't know how extensive it is, except that it doesn't go over more than one page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 1 September 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) 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of notable books are out of print--being continuously in print is a strong sign of notability for a book, but the reverse isn't always true. That said, I'm not seeing any evidence this particular book is notable by any other measure either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Ball

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

Wikipedia is not for madeup things -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 3 September 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/Ralph Townsend}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hinckley}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computers Guide}}