Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 3

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete Clearly does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Enigma^msg 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (50 Cent album)

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

This article's sources consist of youtube and z-share, which cannot be seen as reliable sources. 50 only confirmed the name of the album, so it vioalates WP:Notability and WP:CRYSTAL. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL, for it no further confirmed information is given. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find confirmation of the album title, release date, or track listing in any reliable sources. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Sonic Society

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

As a successor to the Grammy-winning band, Delirious?, I'm willing to bet that they will be notable - but they aren't yet. There's not significant coverage in reliable sources. (contested prod) Fences&Windows 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication they meet WP:BAND, borderline A7. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero sources that are unrelated to the topic. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect - I agree with the nominator. They have a chance of becoming notable but it is now way too early for a separate article. All text can be added to the Delirious? and its existing section on "Future activities." The present article can be deleted and the band name redirected to Delirious? as well. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to merge, this project is already mentioned at Delirious?. But a redirect would be OK. Fences&Windows 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G4. There's even less in this article now than when the first AfD was held. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Don (album)

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

Delete Article has still not improved since it was last deleted and no information on the album has been released as of today. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Teflon Don is a redirect. This nomination is malformed. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has now been fixed to point to the correct article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless there is anything more to be said about this album. WP:CRYSTAL certainly seems to apply. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Nothing to merge, all info is included in Principality of Sealand in sufficient detail. Neither the original title nor the moved-to title are supported by reliable independent sources, so no need for a redirect either. Fram (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand War of Independence

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

All three of these articles are POV forks from Principality of Sealand and are lacking in independent reliable sources, in many cases they are mirrors. The "War of Independence" gets zero google hits, the "Conflict" seems to be little more than a disagreement between the two groups on Sealand, and the "Royal Family" are not recognized as such by any country on earth. Delete all three as redundant, poorly-referenced POV forks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because same problem as above, POV forks:

Salvage whatever can be salvaged into Principality of Sealand, then delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object with the article being deleted. However many conflicts, in particular civil wars, have description pages and are listed on the conflicts page despite the potential for exageration of their significance and the POV issues - one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It is important on these types of pages to maintain objective neutrality. Consequently I think that it is better to retain the page but rename it, than to be pejorative and delete it. I have now renamed the page as the "First Sealand Incident" which describes the conflict in an appropriate way. I have also renamed The Sealand Conflict as Second Sealand Incident. Hope this improves things and hopefully I haven't confused things furtherUser:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That page move was inappropriate in the midst of a deletion discussion, and the new names are only more vague, rather than more descriptive. Your arguments for keeping are not persuasive, by the way, as there is nothing said in those articles that could not be, or is not already, said in the main article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are mainly about page content, not titles... so the "move of moving it" didn't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Firstly as I said, sorry if renaming it was inappropriate. I wasn't aware of that restriction. I am now. Secondly, I have no connection with Sealand and have no vested interest. Thirdly, renaming it as 'incident' was intentionally vague because the incident does not confirm to more conventional conflict descriptions eg "war". It is an 'incident' in the same way as the Yangtze Incident is an 'incident', eg "A definite and separate occurrence; an event"^[1]. Fourthly, the page First Sealand Incident does have independent references. "Sealand incident" gets >15000 hits on google. There is also a link to the transcript of the Essex County Court case where the incident is described. There are many pages where the unsubstantiated claims of different sides to a dispute are decribed in a neutral and objective fashion. Fifthly, the incidents (both the first and second) should be separate pages because they are discrete incidents in the chronology of Sealand and there are links to the pages from other pages eg List of conflicts in Europe which is a complete list of links to similar pages that describe conflicts and incidents. For instance Insurgency in the Preševo Valley links to a page describing that conflict rather than the insurgency being incorporate into the page for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is exactly the same page structure as First Sealand Incident and Principality of Sealand. Sixthly, many incidents linked to from List of conflicts in Europe are internal disputes between unrecognised factions eg 2004 Adjara crisis. Just because the Sealand case is smaller and more unconventional does not mean that it is not conceptually the same type of incident deserving of description. If the Sealand pages are removed they will have to be delisted from the list of conflicts and by extension so will many other incidents and their respective pages User:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- In your favor, I'm assuming you are joking -- you seriously want to compare 42-52 dead and 39 wounded (including 2 "blue helmets") to two guys throwing firebombs on an oil platform? Besides, this is about the nominated article only... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm not joking ! I should also point out that List of micronations lists many similiar scenarios where there are self-proclaimed rulers eg Giorgio Carbone, Nick Copeman so the proposal to delete Bates (Royal Family) should either be extended to all these pages or they should all be kept. Many of them are even flimsier than the case of Sealand. The point is that I'm not making any judgement at all about the relative merits of the Sealand claims, their legitimacy and relative significance of the dispute versus other disputes. What I'm highlighting is the structure of the information - nations, rulers, conflicts - and that it is legitimate to apply that information structure consistently and objectively regardless of personal judgement about the circumstances of the case concerned. That is the basis of my argument to keep the pages - that these pages fit the consistent structure used for describing nations, rulers and conflicts that has been adopted elsewhere. Thanks for the link by the way.User:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Sealand incident" gets >15000 hits on google? Surely you are joking. For me, "sealand incident" gives 7 hits. --Jmk (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They may not have included quote marks. --Thin boy 00 @065, i.e. 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but they should have, if they meant to say something about the phrase "Sealand incident" instead of isolated words. --Jmk (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "they" didn't use quotes. However, to be honest, number of google hits is a pretty poor measure but it was referred to by RepublicanJacobite in his original post. Marlarkey (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (GMT)
  - FWIW, I see exactly eight google hits for "sealand incident" as a phrase. Two of them are these articles, and one is a Wikipedia mirror; two are about a fire at a Korean amusement park; one is about an aquarium. This leaves two, which are both comments (one on a blog, one on a forum), both of which seem to be referring to the Sealand "project" as a whole rather than a specific incident in history. The name's better than "war of independence" or the like, but no-one else calls it that. Shimgray | talk | 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partially merge per Seb az86556. Low notability and POV problems does not allow a separate article. The same for similar "wars" etc.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Silly pretend country's "war of independence" does not merit an encyclopedia article.Edison (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as massive POV forks. The events have not been covered in sufficient detail to merit separate articles, and as such they amount to POV forks. "Sealand incident" is not a widely used term contrary to the assertion above. The argument about against the Bates Family article being deleted is specious. Nobody is suggesting deleting the articles on various family members yet (although that may change after looking at the sources on one), what is objected to is the framing of them as a "royal family" when they are nothing but self-proclaimed royals not recognised as such by anyone non-fringe. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Malarkey, or spin off History of Sealand. Sealand was featured on the American television show, That's Incredible. So if we're gonna call silly happenings, you might as well include World War I-- someone made a wrong turn and stalled the car, seriously? MMetro (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone's seriously out of touch with history - how many people died due to that WWI... "incient"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the "incident" isn't relevant, Just because it didn't involve many people or much fighting doesn't mean it shouldn't be described. For consistency compare with the extensive article on the Anglo-Zanzibar War which was the shortest war in history. That too was a "trivial" incident in comparison with WW1 and other wars, conflicts and incidents that have articles Marlarkey (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (GMT)
  - Yeah. Right. Except for... this time you're bringing up over 3,000 people involved. At least your comparisons become more megalomaniacish. Way to go. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo War is another example, no lives lost, but very important to Michigan's statehood. Sealand's skirmishes are issues of micronational sovereignty. Choy calls me out of touch for calling WWI silly? Note that I described Ferdinand's assassination, which precipitated the events-- an utterly silly, stupid, preventable mistake by the chauffeur and those handling the Archduke's travel plans. Silly is merely someone's POV. And in regards to the articles attached to this AfD, that POV belongs to someone else. MMetro (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U-ha. Case A, Result: Michigan Statehood. Case B, Result: WWI. Case C, Result: err? Some guys voluntarily kept freezing their asses off on an oil-platform?... awesome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV re how to describe Result C... to those on the oil-platform it is their declaration of independent nation status. Sealand is recognised as a micronation and the issue of micronation sovereignty is a notable subject, so from a neutral POV it seems reasonable to include an article on how a particular micronation come into being Marlarkey (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just leave it. But let me also say that in the unlikely event that these articles survive this AfD, I will take it as a precedent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can X be a POV fork of Y when X and Y are about distinct subjects? I'd go for notability here instead. Thin boy 00 @061, i.e. 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS WP:N recommends merging where possible since it applies to articles but not their contents. --Thin boy 00 @067, i.e. 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite easily, really - by making Y seem much more important than a treatment under X would give it. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend merging into Principality of Sealand. I've just stumbled across these "incident" articles when trawling for miscategorised pages, and I really can't see how characterising them as wars or conflicts in their own right is useful in any way. They have no independent significance outside of the history of Sealand itself, and the history section of that article adequately summarises them in that context.
The articles were (I've since made a stab at fixing the first) pretty misleadingly presented; we talk of "belligerents" when it's POV to characterise it as a state action at all, make entirely unsourced and lurid claims of military participation, and all for what it basically a single arrest warrant on a firearms charge with no actual violent crime.
If we merge, we allow these minor incidents to be treated appropriately - as solely relevant to Sealand, and not to any other entity - and we avoid a lot of creeping POV problems from thinking of them as wars, or from edits outside the mainstream consensus on Sealand, both of which seem to be the problem here. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- well Shimgray you've managed to make a complete pigs ear of this haven't you. All your edits change the content of the article and the content is what justifies whether it should be deleted or not as proposed by RepublicanJacobite. Your edits anticipate the result of this deletion proposal... if the deletion proposal is confirmed then the article is deleted, if the deletion proposal is not confirmed then that is validation of the article meeting the notability criteria etc and all your edits would have to undone to make the content of article consistent with it being a notable conflict worthy of an article. Right now your edits make it neither one thing nor the other. And it can't easily be undone either to put it back to how it was for the duration of this AfD Marlarkey (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (GMT)

- - Of course my edits change the content of the article - they were meant to, because I was removing content which was both wrong and impressively misleading, and that's what should be done whatever the situation. I stumbled over the article, noted it was being debated as possibly a fork, looked at the content, found something which didn't look right, and corrected that material both there and on the main page. Then I commented here, explaining the problems and how they related to the issues under discussion; I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see no reason to leave an article being wrong just because we're debating precisely just how bad it already is.
  - I am not sure why you think these edits would need to be undone if the article was kept - that material is factually incorrect, and needed removed, and the decision of this discussion won't magically make them true again. There is no doubt more like it, but I am not familiar enough with the sources to dig any deeper than removing the most obvious errors. Shimgray | talk | 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Marlarky's first comment. This seems notable enough to me for inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is WP:SYNTHESIS and a WP:CFORK. Sources are a blog, a court record (a primary source), and an article in Wired that might be appropriate for the main article, but not strong enough to support this page. Abductive (reasoning) 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Warner Siblings

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

This episode fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Neelix (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable average TV episode. Entire article is pretty much OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of Animaniacs episodes. Fails WP:EPISODE. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources. Sarilox (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of Animaniacs episodes per Joe Chill. JBsupreme (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is more appropriate for the Animaniacs entertainment wiki. Entertainment wikis didn't exist during Wikipedia's early days, where the content was top heavy on separate articles about TV episodes and characters. These now have a home elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha Joe

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

There seems to be no implication of notability of this fictional character apart from the statement that he "first appeared in the notable tenth episode of the seventh season of the American situation comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm episode...". I furthermore have BLP concerns as the article states that "Mocha Joe is a parody of famed celebrity barista Jeremy Gursey..." however provides no references to back this claim up (furthermore, a google search revealed no reliable sources that states this either).
Also note that the first reference has nothing to do with the episode, the second is a broken link, and the third is just the IMDB page of the epiosde. Aka042 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing seems to make him particularly noteworthy of a 'character study' in Wikipedia. I could find no dedicated 'character studies' of him anywhere else, let alone from reliable sources. Scott P. (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete The noteworthiness of the "seinfeld" episode in which "Mocha Joe" makes his debut is sen in the ratings for the episode. The show had ratings unprecedented for the series during the "Seinfeld" episode.

(ref-[1]) As for the link to the possible parody of the famed Barista Jeremy Gursey, it was easily found on Google. In fact on the first page I searched. The page not only makes mention of his work for not only movie sets but also TV sets including Seinfeld, but has a video of still pictures and there is indeed a resemblance to "Mocha Joe". (ref-[2]. It took but 5 minutes to find sources online. If I had more time I could find even more. The Mocha Joe article is no less worthy of a place in Wikipedia than are a multitude of articles. Umihime (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)User: Umihime[reply]

Comment: Note that your second link does not explicitly state any relationship to the character on the Curb episode (as far as I could tell)...Synthesis is to be avoided when writing articles on wikipedia, along with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments in afd discussions. --Aka042 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor character in a cable sitcom that doesn't enjoy significant notability away from the series itself. If you need to keep, merge and redirect it to the article List of Curb Your Enthusiasm recurring roles. But a stand alone article? Nope. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had originally set out to do this (merge) but then realized it did not make sense because as far as I could tell, Mocha Joe does not even seem to be a recurring character (was just in the season finale episode). --Aka042 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per Niteshift. I wouldn't merge, but if someone decides to, I don't have issue with it. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/redirect to Jeremy Gursey (which appears to be the real subject of the article), and then reevaluate whether Gursey meets WP:N (which I'm skeptical of, but is barely within the realm of possibility). THF (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very minor character. I would support merging to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm recurring roles with a note that he never actually recurred, or, better, changing that article to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm characters. Basically, Mocha Joe is a character so minor he doesn't even fit into the list of minor CYE characters. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the episode. A separate article here is not even remotely sensible. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Seinfeld (Curb Your Enthusiasm) Not notable enough for his own article. And he doesn't qualify as a recurring character, since he hasn't recurred. Relevant information can be placed in the article. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the episode's article, and add any relevant information there. Character appears to be minor and doesn't merit inclusion in the list of recurring characters until he appears in more than one episode. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain - Seventh Edition

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

I do not believe that this article about a book meets the notability guidelines for books. After searching the internet, I was unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has received any literary awards or meets any of the other criteria listed at WP:NB#Criteria.

Furthermore, I am concerned with the author of the article, User:UTSWeb, which at the very least may have a COI as the external links section contains a sentence stating: "Software is available through 3rd party vendors. Universal Technical Systems, Inc. has computerized the formulas for use with either TK Solver or Excel", and also contains a link named "Roark's Formulas Product Page on UTS Website". Aka042 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COnsidering the book is not literature, it's not surprising it hasn't received any literature awards. If anything, it would have been reviewed in engineering journals. It's possible it's required reading for engineering students as well, and may be considered a reference for engineers of many flavors. I've notified the Engineering WikiProject so that someone with more idea of what this book is—and possible sources in which it may have been reviewed or discussed—will be aware of this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for posting this over on the Engineering Wikiproject. This book is definitely notable per WP:NB#Criteria point 4. However, I'm at a loss for finding any online references to support this at the moment. I can tell you that I learned about it in college and that it is held in high regards among mechanical engineers and professors. Wizard191 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference: [3], [4] Wizard191 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been moved to Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain. --Aka042 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is clearly an important reference work in its field. The very fact that it has been published for 70 years, with updated editions every 10 years or so, indicates its importance. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some work, but this is a standard reference work used by a multitude of Mechanical and Structural Engineers. Turbine1 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A search of Google Scholar, shown here [5], shows the publication being cited in excess of 1,300 time. In addition ranked:

10 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Strength of Materials
17 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Physics > Nanostructures
17 in Books > Science > Physics > Nanostructures

as shown here [6]. Hope this helps. JAAG^Talk 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I imagine this lack of coverage by WP:RS must be endemic to many handbook articles. Look for example at the ASHRAE Handbook. I don't see any other sources covering this article other than the publisher's. The Roark manual is clearly notable because of its widespread use. Academic notability is harder to establish because a manual of formulas is, by definition, not an academic book. But that's the problem faced by many, if not all, manuals. Maybe we can change the book notability guidelines to reflect this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadstar Assembly

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

This article was originally deleted in accordance with an AfD here. It was undeleted according to a deletion review here. I am relisting the article for deletion because it has not improved sufficiently. User:Michig has listed four possible sources for the article on its talk page, but these are insufficient to demonstrate that the group is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of the band seems to be sufficient to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Deadstar Assembly does not conform to any of the 12 criteria for the notability of musicians and ensembles, 11 of those uncontroversially so. It has no singles or albums on any country's national music chart, no albums certified gold or higher, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, no albums on a major label, and no independently notable musicians. It is not the most prominent representative of a notable style, it has not won or been nominated for a major music award, it has not won or placed in a major music competition, it has not performed music for a work of media that is notable, it has not been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and it has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The only remaining criterion is publication in multiple non-trivial works whose sources are independent from the musician or ensemble itself and are reliable, and Deadstar Assembly fails this criterion as well. The four sources provided by Michig do not fit the criteria. The MusicMight source is trivial as it consists entirely of two short paragraphs. The Allmusic source is even shorter, consisting of only one brief paragraph. I don't see what makes Altsounds a reliable source. The UGO source appears to be OK, but the criterion calls for multiple reliable non-trivial sources; one is not sufficient. Neelix (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @129 · 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has gone to some efforts to establish notability, but these are largely limited to non-notable/non-reputable sources and coverage seems limited to the strip club scene which is and of itself not notable Rotovia (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has apparently toured with notable bands, but that's not enough for WP:MUSIC, and those assertations aren't sourced anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seaborn

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

Bio of an evangelist with no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly unnotable subject, no significant coverage by independent third parties. No objection to recreating should sources appear that back up notability, and as this is the authors first article userfying it might not be a bad idea. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is not notable as an evangelist, then perhaps he is notable as an author per the list of published books? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he really was responsible for the What Would Jesus Do phenomena. Even if he's not then a borderline keep for list of books and evidence that he's on the national evangelical circles. JASpencer (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That phenomenon's ultimate roots lie in the 1896 book In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? by Charles Sheldon. This article claims Shelborn is responsible for popularizing the query again in the form of bracelets. Related citations are in the article What would Jesus do?; both citations there credit the bracelet reminder to a youth minister named Janie Tinklenberg. The Christianity Today source says that "The catalyst for the explosive popularity of the bracelets may have been Paul Harvey, who mentioned them on his syndicated radio broadcast every day for a week during the spring of 1997. ..." Given the lack of citations here, and citations to reliable sources with different answers elsewhere, I'm rather doubtful of this claim myself. GRBerry 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not sure if he was responsible for the WWJD deal, but he is a legitimately published author (small publishers, but reputable ones). Could use work on sources and a less promotional tone. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanananda Maharshi

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

Self referenced and blog referenced BLP. There's one article from The Hindu listed in the references, but that's a daily calendar with no mention of this person. I haven't been able to find anything in Gnews or Gbooks or anything from reliable sources on the web. The books in the bibliography are self-published. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why these references are not enough..In the sai newsletter there is a review of book as well....

Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Books
Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Book review The Secret of Shirdi Sai's Benevolence
Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Book listing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramagurusai (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog paramagurusai.blogspot.com also is not related to the Peetam. You can verify the authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramagurusai (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is an advertisement, the second is from a devotee newsletter and is classified as a user contribution (akin to a forum posting) and third is again an exhaustive list of books for devotees. The fourth is a blog. I don't see any reliable source references in the article, and I haven't been able to find any either. -SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to clean this article up when it first appeared, but was concerned about the notability from the start. When another editor later {{prod}}'ed it, the PROD was denied by the author with the note on the talk page that references would be added. I figured a few days for that should be sufficient, but the references that were added were all primary sources: blogs, advertisements, a list of books at Scribd (which is essentially a ~~wiki for book lovers~~ free document sharing service, allowing users to upload whatever they want), etc. I.e. no reliable sources, no independent indications of notability. I'm afraid this article doesn't really have a chance of becoming an independent biography, and will only serve as a coatrack for this particular sect of Hinduism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see anything that satisifies WP:N or WP:RS. PDCook (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights. Well after seeing the rules I have to agree on Delete as well. Even though it is my article, I have to follow what wikipedia stands for. My only other question is can I adjust the article to just keep the biography and remove everything else (including image) in the page because that does not have any claims? and would the provided references work for atleast that? Else please go ahead and delete entire article. Thanks Again. Paramagurusai (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) paramagurusai[reply]

The issue is that there are no sources that demonstrate notability. As such, this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and trimming it down won't fix that problem. PDCook (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for both articles. general agreement, & article withdrawn by main contriubtor DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism World Hungary

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

A non-notable national beauty pageant, part of a non-notable international beauty pageant, Miss Tourism World. Zero coverage. Fences&Windows 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating: Miss Bikini World Hungary. Fences&Windows 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm assuming that both of these are qualifiers (for want of a better phrase) for Miss Tourism World and Miss Bikini World. Neither of these have an article, so I can't see why qualifiers need an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this article is relevant enough to be included in WP, but if the main events did have an article, would you say the qualifiers are encyclopedic too? – Alensha ^talk 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:EVENT; I am not confident that there are enough reliable, 3rd party sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the main editor of this article. As everyone wants to delete it (and I understand it) I moved the content of it (and of the Miss Bikini World Hungary article, too) on my subpage because I don't want to loose its content. Maybe one day it can be an article again. So now it is ready for deleting. - Perfectmiss (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Guv'nahs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dirty Guv'nahs

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

Failed to establish notiability despite warning placed in May. All sources are independent media from band's hometown. Shalmanese (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and probably violates WP:COI. Sluggo | Talk 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears

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

This article is supposed to be about Britney Spears' nominations and awards, all of them, but the article is irrelevant and unnecessary given the fact that there is another article about Britney Spears' awards, the only "difference" between those articles is that this one includes the "nominations", but in an incomplete way. There are like fifteen awards and nominations, making this article a really incomplete and unnecessary article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination, this article's notable content is in duplication of the existing awards article. Un-won nominations for Britney Spears not notable enough to keep this separate article going. --A1octopus (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitley Neill Gin

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

I found this whilst reviewing the brands listed in the gin article. I can't find significant enough coverage to be certain that this product is notable. I don't consider "The liquor snob" to be a reliable source and other coverage appears to be regurgitated versions of press releases. Smartse (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. - Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While this may look like a different outcome, the people who expressed an opinion to keep have expressed more solid arguments than the others, and as such, this is a keep. (X! · talk) · @129 · 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded Fibre Matrix

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this method of erosion control is featured in many soil engineering texts [7] and has even been the focus of at least one news item in the New Sunday Times [8]. The article clearly needs work, including references, etc. but the subject is certainly notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – To Hydroseeding as a type of application. With regards to a redirect, only if the piece is renamed Bonded Fiber Matrix (Mulch) in that BFM is a term used in engineering that covers a wide range of different applications other than seeding. JAAG^Talk 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoundBox Banditz

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

Fails WP:BAND. Only real claim of notablity is a single newspaper article ~~that was on a different subject but happens to mention the band in relation to the newspaper article's subject~~. The two editors associated with the band Djtrypcide (talk · contribs) and Redwolf5000 (talk · contribs) have also made other claims of notablity, such as the music being used in a high school football team's video. Even if that were true (and no independent reliable sources have been provided), it would still not make the band notable. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was not on a different subject.The subject was music.Which is what the band does. Multiple links are on this bands page which proves it notability.

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/05/students_record_tribute_to_ora.html,

http://www.ourstage.com/profile/soundboxbanditz,

http://www.myspace.com/sbbrecordz,

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1019393, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2009

Okay, the article was on two subjects, the band being one of them. I still dispute that the article meets the WP:BAND criteria on its own. Ourstage, MySpace, and Soundclick are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A music video of this band is repeatedly shown on Channel 35 Orange Township in NJ
Comment: The video played on local news regarding the game i mentioned earlier about Orange vs Summit with music by this band. They are givien credits at the end of the video

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1310478605016&ref=mf, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPb2SgOnJlc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Insights from the bands page only on the first day of the week.[9] can be seen here: http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j140/2Phenominal/FBSBB.jpg, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Multiple !votes are not allowed. I've replaced your redundant "keep"s with "comment"s. You may continue to comment, but do not attempt to "stuff the ballot box". Decisions are made by consensus and on the merits of the arguments presented, not a straight vote count, so it doesn't really accomplish anything anyway. — Gwalla | Talk 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't provide us with enough references to show in-depth coverage from reliable sources, and as such fails the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So by what you have posted, is it to say that the article shall be deleted??Redwolf5000 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been relisted, which means it'll stay open for another 7 days to generate more discussion and a clear consensus. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is much appreciated considering it shall go under more evaluation.76.117.182.103 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Deliberation has SoundBox Banditz been allowed to keep their wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.182.103 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newspaper article is about them, I won't dispute that. But it's local news in a local paper, so it doesn't count for much WRT WP:BAND. Their CDs are self-released, and I can't find any evidence that they have gotten a track in national rotation or gone on tour (or even performed at a live show). Just the hip-hop equivalent of a garage band. — Gwalla | Talk 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Leigh

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

Someone objected to the PROD, so bringing this to AfD. No real notability established. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 02:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If her memoir is to be believed (ISBN 1401038859), she had a romantic interest with Elvis Presley, and IMDB lists 18 credits for TV and movies. Besides, how can you write about Vampirella without her? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known, if not terribly durable, T&A babe of the early 1970s. Career pretty much evaporated after a featured Playboy pictorial didn't boost her profile, but once notable, always notable. Iconic as Vampirella. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; once notable, always notable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. added imdb link, which while not reliable, i think easily shows enough camera time to make it here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I first nominated it for deletion when it contained considerably less information. (See [10]). Given the recent additions, I, too, believe that it should be kept now. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (baseball)

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

Possibly non-notable minor league manager. He did manage two teams to league championships, which may be notable enough. However, I leave that up to you to decide. Alex (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources cited are statistics sites; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two sources for this article. Alex (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and neither source covers the subject in substantial depth (per WP:BIO). Both sources are compilations of statistics. BRMo (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His league championships make him notable in my opinion. - Spanneraol (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem is with lack of references in the article, but I believe we can assume given his history that the sources exist and the solution is to find them, not delete the article. I'll bet that the Times-Picayune morgue--if it survived the flood--would be able to come through. There doesn't seem to be much online--I found only this, which is probably reliable but not substantive. Ma^t_chups 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - definitely needs more RS to be added. However, I think that his accomplishments are enough to merit inclusion, if only barely. Needs to be expanded/verified more. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Rapp

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

Fails WP:N. No WP:RS cited. Basket of Puppies 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article states person is a professional screenwriter, director, and producer and a quick check can confirm. passes WP:N. Can provide more diffs if neccessary. Lack of WP:RS cited should be reason to tag and remove possible libelous material rather than reason for deletion IMO. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is not well written, but according to the subject's IMDB page, there seems to be evidence for ample notability. I would advise a re-write with research instead of a delete. Evalpor (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Needs Learning

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

Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a semi-close call. However, after pondering over the different opinions raised here, I think that the people who expressed an opinion to keep expressed stronger arguments than those to delete. (X! · talk) · @127 · 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lava (game)

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

This article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS There's only one reference from a Simpson's trivia page on TV.com. - tbone (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established. Do we really need an article on this? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and figure out appropriate title and alternative names. This is a notable and common children's game. Whether it is called Hot lava I have no idea outside the Simpsons I have no idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a game, really. Extremely unlikely any substantial coverage in reliable sources exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too useful to delete, although it still needs sources. I found this page while trying to figure out what "the floor is lava" meant, and this is a decent explanation for the perplexed. --Tfkw (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue is supposed to be whether notability could be established. Less than two minutes with Google makes it clear that it could be. --RBarryYoung (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Issues

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

Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An original research essay which, while no doubt a noble cause does not belong in Wikipedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Symptoms

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

This article is WP:OR and has no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That can change, and the topic of Disability Symptoms is notable. Strong KeepHello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, unreferenced....I would think that such a broad topic as symptoms of disability would be unlikely to fit in a single article. With this in mind, we don't need this article or any other article with this name, so delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try snd comment on the article not the creator Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the mention of WP:BITE:

My !vote was based on WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR—which are about the article.
He created his account over 18 months ago—at what point isn't he a newbie anymore?
In that time period, this editor has created (at least) six new articles. Two have been deleted (one speedy, one AFD) and the other four are all currently up for AFD (the others can be found here, here, and here). These articles all have identical problems—they're essays without references.
His user page was recently deleted for being advertising (which makes it seven, I guess).

I'm a big believer in WP:AGF, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't notice trends. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request and lack of keep !votes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Show for the Gods

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... and most likely spam. And WP:CRYSTAL. And whatnot. Should've been speedied. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that book aren't covered under CSD's that I can recall. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 08:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD can be closed now as the author has blanked the page, and I have added db-g7's to the pages. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowFall

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... and most likely spam. And WP:CRYSTAL. And whatnot. Should've been speedied. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD can be closed as the author has blanked the page, and I have placed db-g7 on the page. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Motivation

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

Not encyclopedic. No WP:RS and written like an essay. Basket of Puppies 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James LePage

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

I can't find significant coverage for this martial arts fighter. I could verify that he won at least one competition[11] but that's all. Fences&Windows 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." 2 says you, says two 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined the speedy as the bio makes claims to competing at world championship level in Karate, which could pass WP:ATHLETE if verified. Fences&Windows 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unproven claims of sporting and music notability, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been unable to find any references to support the subject meeting any of the WPMA guidelines on notability for martial artists. Janggeom (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 - author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economic reforms after the collapse of socialism

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

A poorly written essay that gives a cursory synthesis of topics that are covered in depth in several other articles. No new information is presented, and what is given here is completely unsourced. 2 says you, says two 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete — this article has been covered in depth on other pages such as Decommunization (though that page does not contain an abundance of sources either, and to be honest it doesn't really go into depth). I suggest redirecting this page to that article or whatever other article goes into depth on the subject. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than a POV essay. Everyking (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks focus, and the subject is as Master & Expert points out, covered elsewhere. I also agree with Everyking that the article is a POV essay, and I would add that I object to the term "collapse of socialism", when the system which collapsed is communism. Socialism is a different political standpoint, and while I no longer subscribe to that policy either, it is unfair to equate socialists with communists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailout! The Game

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable game, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only sources found are trivial or press releases. TN X Man 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually seems like a fun game, but there's also COI as the author is the creator. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My local TV station just covered a family in my area playing this game; I don't think that would be non-notable. It just needs a rewrite. Killer Magikarp (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep. The article's a mess, but the subject matter meets WP:N. THF (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep bad game, but has coverage enough to meet WP:N. Added a review (which adds little to the notability but adds a bit of balance). Hobit (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up some of the blatant promotional language. Still needs help, but I think the COI issues have been largely dealt with. A lot of formatting help is still needed. Also note this has apparently seen coverage on MSNBC since deletion was first proposed (I didn't wait through the ads to watch the video link in the article). Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep But only if coi editor stops filling it with unencyclopedic promotion... the article is a mess as it stands. Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found sufficient quality refs to show that it easily passes WP:GNG, and I've updated the article accordingly. Now, if only the article creator would leave it alone… Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, an editing restriction based on COI might well be needed here. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got news coverage. Dream Focus 11:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Marsh

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

Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable athlete. I42 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm Neutral. Google search with "Faye Marsh Watford" throws up several (local) news stories about this FA Tescos Womens Premier League athlete. Annette46 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced BLP. Jennifer500 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Removed by User:Dougweller:banned editors cannot edit, this is a sock of user:John254 I42 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced is not reason for deletion; unreferenceable is, if nothing can be found after a search. but in this case,

delete because nothing substantial has been found after a reasonable search. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ran-Tan Waltz

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

fails WP:MUSIC. They've been played once (not in rotation) and the sourcing is nothing impressive; the fact that the Pontefract Express mentions a band from around Pontefract is not a sign of notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Francesca Chiara. Tone 11:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il Parco Dei Sogni

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

Unnotable first album by barely notable article. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Was redirected to artist per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC but a fan disputed without discussion and without adding any sources showing significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I usually don't relist non-blp articles a second time unless they haven't been sorted but am doing so this time on the request of the nominator. For any others I have closed "no consensus" due to lack of participation, they can be immediately renominated per WP:NPASR which has the same effect as another relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Francesca Chiara. I don't see enough significant coverage specifically for the album to warrant a separate article. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Francesca Chiara. The biography already includes one line about the album, and the description of the album in this article is much more interesting than the biography. In fact, I'll do that just now. (Done.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and could someone please explain "Single declutching"? Is it akin to taking one egg from a clutch of eggs? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. sort of leaning towards a weak keep at this point. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mukala

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

Would seem to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines, having only released one album. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [12]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have made some additions to this article. Gongshow ^Talk 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May pass the general notability guideline at this point. - Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems notable enough at this point. Alex Muller 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sterling (entertainer)

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

No WP:RS cited, fails WP:N. Delete. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources., 3rd party references for this article and would like you to re-consider your "nomination for deletion" You will find info on Mr. sterling from MTV.com, The New Times (Miami), itunes, youtube.com and more. Thank you Msmayer (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says the song "Lovers and Friends" peaked at #3 on Billboard, which would meet WP:BAND, but [13] says it never charted. Is there any source asserting the peak position? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the info where you can find that Lovers and Friends peaked at #3. It's right her on wikipedia under Usher (entertainer)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usher_(entertainer) and also here: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:i4qGhLjeFNYJ:www.lyricsparadise.com/billboard-top25.shtml+lovers+and+friends+billboard+25&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us .Msmayer (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ah, now I understand. Michael Sterling is the writer of those songs, not the performer. That means WP:BAND #2 does not apply. However WP:COMPOSER #1 and #3 applies for that song, through the section WP:NSONG which details "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." However we really need a verifiable, reliable source still. The site "lyricsparadise.com" does not strike me as meeting that criteria. Additionally, we cannot use a circular reference. However this source which was used in Usher (entertainer) seems to be reliable to me. Based on that research, I'd go with keep. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on [14] he meets WP:PEOPLE's basic criteria, regardless of any special notability based on his performance or production of music. Assuming mtv.com is considered a reliable source, that would also prove notability as far as WP:COMPOSER because he would be "credit[ed] for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julia McIlvaine

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

No WP:RS cited, fails WP:N. Delete. Basket of Puppies 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (IMHO) the bigger issue is with WP:V. A recurring voice credit on a Nickelodeon cartoon along with some major live appearances on several notable TV shows, would imply at least some notability - but per the nom, there are no reliable sources and I wasn't able to find any. 2 says you, says two 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough references.--Apollo789 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While disgreeing with Apollo789 about the current sourcing, it seems that a search finds plenty of available sources to address any concerns toward WP:V. The nom noted these were missing, but surmountable issues should be addressed through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Earl of Onslow. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Onslow, Viscount Cranley

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

He's only a courtesy viscount, failing WP:POLITICIAN. The only notable thing about him is his choice of wife, and notability isn't inherited. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and this is a comment rather than a keep). Before nominating a living British peer or holder of a courtesy title, I would suggest checking the person's entry in Who's Who (which I don't currently have access to, but which is available at many good libraries). The sources used to create the current article don't list his occupation or volunteer activities, and I have no information myself. I have been unable to find anything else about him, so perhaps he really isn't notable. It seems likely, though, that someone with his advantages would have a good chance of doing things that would establish his notability. A search for "Rupert Onslow" or for "Lord Cranley" doesn't turn up any useful new information about him, but perhaps he is better known by a nickname or another of his given names. - Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but you could expect that from the person who established the article. I think your proposal has flaws, and I hope that you and the community will accept that there is good reason for such people to have their own entry.
- At what point in their life does an heir apparent become notable? From your proposal, it appears that this person's choice of spouse is notable to you. (Is notability only related to what a person does? If so, then there are various people who should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia, such as Rosemary Kennedy whose only claim to fame may be to be the most famous person lobotomised (although that claim is also arguable) but who seemingly 'did' not much at all.)
- At what level of the nobility does an heir apparent become notable? Let's agree (I think) that the heir apparent to a royal crown is notable, but is the heir apparent to a Duke? Perhaps a European Count, but not his heir apparent? (Be assured that I will be adding to the entries of the Count of Harmel, which has just changed hands from Pierre Harmel.) But, what about Belgian Viscounts? Do we leave them to the Belgian Wikipedia, so we should delete any entries in the English Wikipedia?
- Are you also proposing that all other British courtesy Viscounts should be removed? If not, why not? Would you move to block the creation of articles on those without entries already? If not, why not? Would Linley make the cut? Is heading up a furniture business and an auction house enough? Macmillan, the fashion label owner? Dangan, the securities trader? But, they are Viscounts!- Peter Ellis - Talk 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  An heir apparent becomes notable when they pass WP:BIO. Macmillan and Linley do this; Onslow does not. My comment about the choice of spouse was what is known as sar-ca-sm. There's no need to go off on one; it's a long-established principle that other than members of the House of Lords pre-1999 and post-99 members with seats, all peers are expected to pass WP:BIO; courtesy peers particularly. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Onslow. Only to have and use a courtesy title is not enough to pass WP:Notability. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally edited this article in 2008 becasue I had wanted to know who the Lady Cranley was who is on the board of Invicta Plastics. If the article is deleted (something I don't necessarily support) please ensure that this and any other information is merged into another article in a sensible place so that it's not lost, rather than blindly deleting it and people's research with it. JRawle (Talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some regret, Delete article and redirect to Earl of Onslow. His father is notable, since he is a member of the House of Lords, but there is certainly that he will follow his father. Currently he is a NN insurance executive. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future. Doesn't appear to qualify for inclusion yet as it has been noted due to the fact that it is a courtesy title. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itsu (comics)

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

I'm a big fan of comic books, but this entry about a relatively obscure character fails WP:N. All it has is a detailed fictional biography, and no indication of why the character is notable beyond the comics it's been featured in. I can't find any usable references; just the comics themselves and Wikipedia. otherl left 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soltan Hajibeyov

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

Notability. This composer has made no impact in the classical music world. His works haven't been performed by major ensembles or published by a major publishing company. No results on google or yahoo. Karljoos (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to meet the general notability guideline (try searching in Russian), if not any music-specific ones. People's Artist of Azerbaijan SSR title is confirmed by his (rather brief) entries in the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary [15], and the Theatre Encyclopedia [16]. cab (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He might meet some criteria, but I think that not every professional musician deserves an article. There are millions of musicians with CVs like this gentleman's, but they do not deserve an article. I don't see any relevance in his career as a composer, apart of some appointements at, and this said with all respect, a provincial conservatoire. There can't be an article about every single professional musician!!--Karljoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People's Artist of the USSR is a very significant honor, basically the highest artistic honorary title that was available in USSR. Also, the Russian Wikipedia article mentions that he received the Stalin Prize of second degree in 1952. Passes WP:BIO on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he was the subject of a published biographical book about him[17]; the title of the book translates from Russian as "Sultan Gadzhibekov : life and creative work". That definitely makes him pass WP:BIO. I think that perhaps the title of the WP article needs to be moved to a better transliteration of his name, since Hajibeyov is really far off the mark. The transliteration should be something like Hadzhibekov or Gadzhibekov. Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is another published biography of him[18]. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And another one[19]. Nsk92 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is also an entry about him[20] in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to all of the above it looks like he passes WP:PROF #6 as rector of an important music school. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin Shafiee

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

Person doesn't pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A handful of GS cites on fundamental physics topics but nowhere enough for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. An award or a particular honor has to be recorded Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

what is the honor? I cannot see any in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very low citability of his work (see GoogleScholar search[21]; the first hit there appears to be a false positive, a medical article; the physics papers have citation hits in low single digits), nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Sinergy

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

I can find zero coverage in reliable sources about this pageant, despite all its Google hits. The closest thing to coverage might be [22], but that alone doesn't cut it. Fences&Windows 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tend to agree, most of the refs on there were self sourced apparently. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pageant. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomomi Hirano

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

Unreferenced BLP article. Subject is a member of a redlinked group (no article) that is a sub-part of the Hello! Project. I can see news articles in here name but they are about a Fishery's dept official. She seems to have attracted no significant interest from reliable sources...does not meet biographical notability standards required here. Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Adlam

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

Potentially non-notable player/manager of minor league baseball. He did have notable achievements in both playing and managing, however they still may not be notable enough. Alex (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 88.3 Southern FM. Seems like a reasonable option given the lack of substantial input. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Impulse

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

The article has no assertion of notability and is written like an advertisement. Additionally, its only external are non-neutral and non-verifiable (their official website and a MySpace page); there are no citations at all. Shirik (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 88.3 Southern FM, which has a list of shows; it would be easy to put it there, and it would add to that page. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete: not notable on it's own. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Kait

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

Not yet a notable performer: The "career highlights" on the linked press release make it clear that she doesn't make the notability guidelines. Slashme (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns 251,000 results. Page may need expansion, but keep. Alex (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very weak article, with little to show notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That "theme song" is a twelve-second instrumental piece where we don't hear a voice at all. No notability. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: So far the only "keep" argument has been based on a Google hit count. If that were valid, we would be comparing with other new performers, for example Pixie Lott who gets 11 million hits, but it is in fact an argument specifically to be avoided in deletion debates. --Slashme (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And even then the result is just an estimate of all results containing "Just" and "Kait". Narrow it down with quote marks and we're down to 678 unique G-hits. Nate • (chatter) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional notability can be established Vartanza (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If It Ain't Broke...

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

This AfD concerns three EPs and two live albums by Matt Wertz. While Wertz is a notable artist, I don't believe these recordings of his are sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles. These articles are unreferenced and consist of little more than track listings. Per WP:NALBUMS, these may be notable because they are by a notable artist, but that doesn't mean they're definitely notable. I don't see evidence of notability under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for any of these five articles, hence this AfD. Other than If It Ain't Broke..., I'm nominating:

Orange EP
Live in Paradise
Today & Tomorrow
Where We Started A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NALBUMS and WP:MUSIC. 2 says you, says two 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Swan Airport

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

This new article is about a non-notable, former airport. Canglesea (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meant Delete — Per nom not notable, even as a closed airport. See the airport notability requirement here. Gosox5555 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 00:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inhibitory Control Test

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

Test is not widely used and if relevant could be discussed in hepatic encephalopathy rather than requiring its own page. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed quite notable to me; but if the decision is taken to delete the article, please move the contents to a subsection in the hepatic encephalopathy. Cheers, --CopperKettle 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The publication by Bahaj et al., 2007, cites the use of the test to "characterize attention deﬁcit disorder, schizophrenia, and traumatic brain injury"; so maybe it is not so hepato-specific and deserves a small article of its own.. --CopperKettle 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Keep. I would be inclined to keep for now and see if reliable sourcing can be found to establish relevance beyond simply diagnosing hepatic encephalopathy. It seems to me that this test is a more general assay of neurological function. Perhaps it should instead be merged into a neurology-related page. I think it's improbable that it would be used only for one disorder. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked further, and PubMed turns up a large amount of sourcing, and clearly does relate the test to a lot more than just the one disorder. The page needs to be corrected to reflect that this is not just a one-use test, but I think it clearly passes notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for any help in improving the article; I've started it on a surge of interest while reading on Wilson's disease, so it is a bit slanted indeed. --CopperKettle 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of the original publication PMID 17222319 but also PMID 18723018 and mentioned in the review PMID 18043677 and the editorial PMID 17593162. Seems sufficient sourcing to establish notability, especially since this test is not new and has been used in other fields previously (refs in PMID 17222319 introduction). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camollywood

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails Google Test. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-admitted NEO. 2 says you, says two 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds too similar to the name of the technology reporter Molly Wood of CNET and might trigger something. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire: Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNOW applies.—Ash (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator seems to have !voted keep, no other arguments for deletion.. Fences&Windows 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walt de Heer

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

This page looks great in design ... but I am not sure that it satisfies the notability criteria. In addition to being mentioned in a couple of newspapers and websites, only 2 of the prizes look good to me. Then I searched further. First, I found ~100 Scientists listed in Scientific American 50 in 2006. Not many of them have wikipages (I checked a dozen or two only), and among those who have, this Sci Am 50 is not even mentioned. "The Nanoscience prize" sounds great but this is not the Kavli Nanoscience Prize but an award given by an organizing committee of some conference! Basically, the best in a dancing competition during a summer camp. I do not mind to have extra pages on Wiki but I know many more professors who have got real prizes and distinctions but no wiki pages.

I am not sure but it is strange to see a rather average professor (for his age and his School/University) being listed on Wiki. Sicfriend (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An h-index of 50 is hardly trivial and more than establishes notability in itself. --Googolit (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In addition to the h-index data mentioned by Googolit he has three papers with over 1000 citations each in Google scholar, one of them solo-authored. He clearly passes WP:PROF #1, and also #5 due to his Regents' Professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. I agree with Googolit and David Eppstein. I just wish to add that who the "The Nanosize prize" is given to is not chosen among the participants of a conference. Awarded researchers are chosen among the research community and invited about half a year before the conference in order to receive the award by the "Atomically Controlled Surfaces, Interfaces and Nanostructures" organizing committee. Also, Sicfriend argument about other researchers and professors awarded with the same prize not having a Wikipedia entry would only be meaningful in order to establish the notability of this article, if all other professors not having an entry are actually not notable. The fact that other professors who deserve Wikipedia entries do not have them is not a criteria of notability for article deletion. --Slaute (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Strange nomination, it is unusual to see a new user master the intricacies of AfD so fast. In any case, this case is so obvious, that I think it is snowing heavily. --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an explanation of this pointy nom, see the edit history of Andre Geim. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Gasupporter (talk · contribs) repeatedly vandalized the Geim page claiming that it was incorrect in attributing the discovery of graphene to Geim. The nominator has the appearance of someone in the Geim camp deciding to take revenge. Despite WP:AGF I think we should seriously consider the possibility that Gasupporter and the nominator are two sockpuppets of the same troll, trying to stir up trouble — why would someone who actually works in the labs of either of these highly successful scientists stoop to such juvenile tactics? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I note that there is a contentious discussion of priority on the graphene talk page. In view of the anonymity afforded by Wikipedia one cannot rule out such Machiavellian tactics as attacking one's own side and hoping that the opposition will cop the blame. Who knows what is going on! Xxanthippe (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep, stick fork in it, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Googolit. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other related criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons clearly expressed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep although I despise pages written by close associates or maybe even by people themselves. Some references (see, e.g., [7]) are very specific and cannot be found if you are not working for this group. Oh, well. These days every professor wants his/her home page on Wikipedia. Importantly, please do not forget to donate to Wikipedia! KlausMn (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google walt de heer > 2nd result > left side. You seem to have deep loyalties of your own ... --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:PROF I can NOT believe that this was Walt de Heer himself craetingg the page (not so low) but obviously he encouraged one of his lieutenants (probably the guy who runs the graphene news blog in Georgia). No signature. Have to keep friendly relations. Sorry.Sicfriend (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and I will exercise the same privilege. --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who stands to what he writes and edits under his own name, I hope it is not necessary to detail what I think of the above two comments. --Crusio (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please closeGiven that the original nominator has now voted "keep" and that there has not a single !vote for deletion, I hope that someone will speedily close this improper nomination so that we can stop wasting out time. --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can non-admin close for those reasons. MMetro (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, looks like a bad-faith nom. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [23]

[1] [23]

[1]