Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 10

< 9 October	11 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Whiteside

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

Fails notability guidelines - two of the sources are self-published, the other doesn't mention him at all. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Created for IP by ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taken out the sources that were there before and added one which did have in-depth coverage of the subject. However, one source does not a notable person make. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the news accounts cited in the article are significant enough. Advocate.com is not self published, and is a good RS. The Vanity Fair though not extensive is also acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article for New Left Media and merge this article into it. New Left Media is certainly notable, they've been profiled by the Washington Post and Film Threat, along with various trivial mentions in other mainstream media outlets. The notability of the nominated article, which features one of the creators of the organisation, is dubious, but the organisation is notable.--hkr Laozi speak 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is for an investment firm of the same name but not much else. [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 27 October 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 Marasmusine (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Live

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

A YouTube clip, a blog written by a developer, and a press release. Epic fail of notability criteria. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD completed by GiftigerWunsch [TALK] on behalf of the nominating IP, using the rationale left of the article's talk page. I am currently neutral to the debate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the theoroughly unimpressive article and sources, it does seem to be getting some mainstream attention, for example this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 03:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - reliable sources search returns plenty of hits, with 15+ usable sources with significant coverage on the first two pages. A quick search could have saved the trouble of bringing this to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that disagreeing with the nominator's rationale is not grounds for a speedy keep: per WP:SPEEDYKEEP, it is only applicable when the nomination is purely disruptive, the nominator withdraws it, the nominator is banned, or the article is either a policy or guideline page, or linked from the main page; none of these criteria seem to apply. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:03, 17 October 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. Ged UK 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in Alaskan aviation accidents

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

There are no similar lists for other countries and it violates Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to List of fatalities from aviation accidents and the required redir is cheap. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm more in favor of a redirect to Transportation in Alaska. Surprisingly, we don't have an article about the air travel in Alaska, where one out of every 80 residents has a private pilot's license, and, because of geography and lack of population, most long-distance travel within the state is done in the air rather than on the ground. There's enough context out there that could be made for a very good article that might include mention of the events on the list. Without any background information, though, it looks like trivia. Mandsford 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not disagree that location either, but you do mean a M&R right ?Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I was not going to chime in on this as the spirit of these forums should be more judicious. However let this be pointed out that Ted Stevens (whose name this person has no need or interest in using gratuitously) said as quoted in [2] that he expected perhaps to perish this way. When Will Rogers died he was one of the most famous wits in the nation and perhaps akin to Bob Dylan a voice for his generation. There is an established pattern of air crashes in Alaska which have killed notable people as well as others (such as legislator Arthur Johnson) which has established a pattern which begins to become a phenomonon (Hale Boggs again was a prominent congressman when he died and his death led to a shake up in the House of Represenatives power structure) and the man who replaced Ted Stevens in the Senate's father died the way Ted Stevens did and so did Steven's first wife. So the whole thing begins to take on though not a supernatural tone a historical story line though caused by weather of a Bermuda Triangle. There is nothing wrong that all said with merging it into what has been suggested by another voice the list of aviation fatalitiesMasterknighted (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you possibly provide a source that suggests there is an "established pattern of air crashes in Alaska which have killed notable people ... which begins to become a phenomonon [sic]" similar to the Bermuda Triangle? The Bermuda triangle is something which is established in international culture because of the high number of mysterious disappearances of sea-going craft and aircraft. Alaska, however, is not the Bermuda Triangle. If there is nothing to suggest that Alaska has gained a cult following of people who are interested in mysterious air crashes that just happen to have killed several people worthy of note, then the article should be deleted. But even if there is a group of people, no matter how large, that think the number of celebrity who have perished in the air is suspicious, then they are a bunch of conspiracy theory nutters. Wikipedia does not have lists such as these. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the qestion mark in your opening salvo. Therein it is a phenomona not exactly like the Bermuda Triangle but akin in that a group of events have happened in light of a condition in a geographically demarcated area named by the United States, Alaska and that there might be an accident if one flies there or through there. Further notable people have died under such circumstances and the occurence of fatalaties of very prominent people has been a footnote in history several times over. There is nothing wrong with it being merged either, perhaps it would have been better if it had been written as the history of Alaskan aviation accidents and it would be proviential should it serve as the genesis for an article as such (or merged as a section or into a section in the article on Alaskan Transportation Transportation in Alaska. ). Masterknighted (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page reminds me of the old joke: "If it's not on Wikipedia, it didn't happen." As I previously stated on the article's talk page, in light of what's known on this particular subject, this page deserves to be deleted merely on account of being such a piss-poor piece of work.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the end KAOS this article maybe deleted but you will still be a very nasty manifestation of some agenda activated by something deep within your raison d'etre. I enjoy debate if this article could have been improved upon and redirected it would have been fruitful but perhaps it is like that proverbial bridge to nowhere now which perhaps it is your best interest to stomp upon. Get a life direct your anger elsewhere and indeed the article would probably be better with a description of weather in Alaska with then a history of accidents and then the effect on subsequent events by the loss of those who perished. I did not think of this when i wrote it. This person was just trying to fill in a gap in information via a list such as are on wikipedia so that a correlation would be established for informational purposes. Obviously it could have been better thought through.Masterknighted (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try not to be so vituperative this time out. Here's the way I see it. I actually live in Alaska, and may enjoy a perspective on some matters which exceeds what someone who doesn't live in Alaska and/or has no ties to Alaska is able to find via a Google search. It would probably be a very safe bet to state that the number of people killed in aviation accidents in Alaska over history numbers well into the thousands. Taking that into consideration, the article contributes approximately zero towards illuminating the subject matter. In fact, all it does is mirror information already contained in List of fatalities from aviation accidents and the individual biography pages linked to the page. If you notice my contributions, I've worked on a lot of Alaska-related pages. My biggest complaint has to do with countless pages which have more to do with Sarah Palin than the titular subject of the page. This is hardly that much more different than that.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am dubious of the merits of this article. In a land as big as Alaska, "local" transport is (I think) commonly by light aircraft. This thus almost become the equivalent of a list of people killed in car crashes, clearly a NN topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 17 October 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. Ged UK 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeLong Quarterly

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

not sure what applies to magazines but WP:GNG in any case. hardly any coverage. [3]. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is very notable, hardly any coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable online magazine. No coverage found except self-referential websites and non-reliable-source websites and blogs. Some awards are claimed, but they don't appear to be notable awards. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Mixwell

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

Article lacks reliable sources but has lots of refs to promotional sites, and I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bringing to AFD to get more eyes on this. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of fluff and puff, but in the end, notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Cindamuse (talk) 13:48, 17 October 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 B105_FM#Labby.2C_Camilla_and_Stav. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labby, Camilla & Stav

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

Prod removed by creator. Non-notable radio show, completely unreferenced. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guest on Labby, Camilla & Stav has been listed separately.--Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Armbrust.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to B105 FM where the existing mention could be expanded a little. Delete the list of guests - completely non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 16 October 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. Ged UK 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church, Bluffton

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

Non-notable local church. either way (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, or any other indication of notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, as one would expect from a church so new. St Anselm (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short paragrpah on it to the article on Bluffton. This is usually the best solution for churches etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a merge or redirect. Other churches are not listed at the Bluffton article, there is no reason why this one should be. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 16 October 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. Ged UK 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valobaslei Ghor Bandha Jay Na

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

Prod contested. No reference given. Non notable film.There have no response from creator. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a non-notable film without any coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 01:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when Facebook is your only reference says it all really for failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 October 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. Ged UK 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Geare

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

fails WP:ENT. no extensive nor significant roles. which is kind of expected for a 4 year old. way too early to create an article. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jarkeld (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's really nothing out there to support her having an article under WP:N. Here's[4] a cute picture of her and her siblings at the premiere of Inception. Let's hope they didn't actually go watch the movie.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:44, 11 October 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. Ged UK 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Fosse

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

Does not seem to be notable. Per WP:BIO, notability is not inherited. She does not seem to have a notable career of her own, so the closest claim to notability is her famous parents which is an invalid claim. either way (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability or wp:creative. The one ref I could find focuses on her father. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very notable, very little sources and only one reference. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find anything more than one reference (which is already in the article) with in-depth coverage of this person. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:04, 16 October 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. Ged UK 18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Aristide Constantin Georges Caradja

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

Non-notable private individual with no apparent claim to notability except that he is a distant descendant of a family of nobility (great-great-great-grandfather was once a "Kaimakam" of Walachia), in a country where nobility titles have no legal currency. Per WP:BIO, notability is not inherited and mere relation to notable people does not make a subject notable in Wikipedia's terms. Only source given is a family tree of unknown provenance, apparently privately compiled and self-published, on somebody's website. Most other biographical claims are entirely unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting and notable father and interesting family in general, but neither is a claim to notability. Wikipedia does not create a separate article for every line in the Gotha. (Or rather, some people do just that, but many have to be deleted.) We might be able to get him through on the WP:ACADEMICS ticket, but I found no evidence of research after he got his doctorate. Hans Adler 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of personal notability.Anonimu (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 October 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. Ged UK 18:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Premier League Fantasy Football

It's unclear whether this article is about a specific Fantasy football league for the Premier League, or about Fantasy football leagues on the Premier League in general. There's already an article Fantasy football (Association). Might also be a case of spam. Bobbymozza (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bobbymozza (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a copyvio too. —Half Price 15:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just seems to be some guy's personal reviews of various PL fantasy games, which obviously is completely unencyclopedic. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, completely unencyclopedic. Giant Snowman 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all original research. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically just a list. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 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) 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stainless (web browser)

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

Tagged for notability since June 2009. Only references are 2 x primary sources plus a tweet. Many GHits, but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. News hits are mostly about the trim of mobile phones with browsers. As always, pleased to be shown wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find these: Macnn, MacWorld, CIOL. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, small number of press releases and one apparent blog post (although in a reliable source) doesn't reach the bar in my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides the questionable nature of the so-called references, I'm convinced after further review that any reference to this subject we find, including the Wikipedia article itself and it's tags in various Wiki categories, are all the result of one or more members of the development team attempting raise the notability of this non-notable subject, rather than by any sort of natural process (like coverage due to pre-existing notability). In other words, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. WP:NOTADVERTISING --Dpaanlka (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might become notable if they ever go beyond a beta, but isn't yet. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 23 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Mondragon

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

This guy doesn't really have any notable coverage. Sure he takes photos that appear in magazines, but don't a lot of other people? I also feel as though he wrote his own article based on the overspecificness of some of the details involved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete - notability not established. I'd change my mind if that were fixed, however. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure Vanispamcruftisement created by a single-purpose account … article lacks attribution to verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria, let alone WP:GNG … the "References" are just a collection of self-published sources. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{09:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. Not seeing notability here. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [5]. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I gave it a cleanup when it was first posted, but it appears to fail WP:CREATIVE, with no significant coverage from WP:RS, either online or in his online press clippings. Top Jim (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and the article as it stands is indeed pure vanispamcruftisement. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although most of the article centers on his photography work, there is one line where it's claimed he was a co-developer of the Transputer. I can find nothing online supporting this, and the article's creator reverted my attempts to tag that line for citations twice. If evidence for that can be found, then that is certainly notable, and the parts about his current career could be trimmed down. Top Jim (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what the internet has to say David May (computer scientist) has been heralded as the project's inventor. Carl might have worked on the project but he sure as heck didn't play a crucial role. Also, the fact that the user keeps removing citation tags makes me think that the user either knows that they are lying or are trying to hide the truth surrounding that fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of unspecified strength. There seems to be an implication above that a contemporary photographer of any significance should appear in Google News: I'd dispute that. Problem is, I can't see any other sign of particular significance. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rushel Shell

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

fails WP:NSPORTS and general notability guidelines Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shell has received significant coverage from a range of reliable sources, both local and national -- see the reference list in the article. He is one of the top HS athletes in the country: a national freshman of the year, probable state record-setter and major college star, and possible NFL player. He's being recruited by virtually every big-time college football program and will only grow in notoriety as he approaches his senior year, breaks more records, and decides which college to attend. Even midway through his junior season in high school a google search for "Rushel Shell" (in quotes) results in almost 3,000 hits. Bottom line: he's a notable figure. Anybody who argues otherwise doesn't understand how big high school and college football, and recruiting, have become in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreybower (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How good he may or may not become is just speculation right now, and Google hits do not confer notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally (heck almost always) high school athletes are not notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Look, [ESPN says he's comparable to Tony Dorsett. Sure, he's got loads of local and regional coverage, but this player has picked up some national attention as well. It's worth a much closer look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is certainly there, and there is notability for the subject's present performance - not the fact that they'll likely be successful at the College and (maybe) Pro levels. WP:CRYSTAL applies there, I think, but the current coverage is sufficient to establish some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:52, 12 October 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 Live CD. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCjacking

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

Neologism which also fails WP:USEENGLISH as the article lacks sufficient English-language sources using the term. Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two English-language sources to External links. Note, however, there being a lack of English-language sources presented in an article is not a reason for deletion in itself. I spend more time on French Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, and it is not unusual to find in the former articles with more English sources than French, or exclusively English sources. But this is not usually complained about because non-French sources are still accepted as sources, provided they are good ones. I don't see why should be more punctillious about the language of sources here.

Also see my arguments below. RedRabbit (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree, but since the article is question concerns a word/term/neologism... --Cybercobra (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns a neologism, but is mainly about a practice, not a word. RedRabbit (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICDEF. Take your pick. Not enough found to have an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Under WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROMOTION. It would meet WP:GNG as a hobby or popular activity if there were more people doing it, but the referenced coverage only talks about one guy (which probably means it's also WP:COI, as he probably created the article). -- BenTels (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check before alleging the article contravenes WP:COI. The creator of the article is a native English speaker, which that 'one guy' is not. And I doubt the author of the page works for Google, which that 'one guy' apparently does, according to his homepage. Your other arguments I address below. RedRabbit (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of entries listed on Google from a search on 'PCjacking', so there must be considerable interest in the subject. Being a based on a neologism in itself isn't a reason to delete an article; there are plenty of articles based on neologisms which advocates of this article's deletion would consent to keeping (see the article on 1337 for example). I think a search through magazines and blogs will reveal an adequate number of sources, should anyone have the time and patience. PC Jacking is not merely some hobby of marginal interest, for Linux users are very passionate about their operating system . 203.39.247.185 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done further research and found a number of articles in magazines treating the subject:

http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/linux/434876/pcjacking_um_linux_populaerer_zu_machen/ (German)

http://www.fn.hu/tech/20060301/kalozakcio_szabad_szoftverek/ (Hungarian)

http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/9340/pcjacking-zur-verbreitung-von-linux.html (German)

http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2006/07/pc_jacking_a_craze_is_born.html

http://techie-buzz.com/foss/crazy-linux-fans-messing-departmental-store-computers.html

And that is to say nothing about the considerable discussion in blogs and forums.

Now allow me to address the arguments propounded above by the adovactes of deletion. To begin with Neologism — a search on the web (which I took liberty of making) will reveal the world has significant currency among bloggers, magazine-writers and people posting on forums. Therefore it is not fair to say the article is created with the intent of promoting use of an unknown or little-known word. As for WP:NOT#DICDEF, this does not imply the article should not remain, only that it should be expanded beyond a definition.

And for those who complain that the article is being used for promotion, I have this advice: rewrite the article in a tone that agrees with Wikipedia's guidelines, if it does not already. As a matter of fact, the last link is for an article whose author deprecates the practice; indeed an article on the subject needn't necessarily promote the practice, a fact to which that article abundantly bears witness.

As for notability, even if you ignore the evidence on blogs and in the links above, you only need to give the matter a little thought to see why the subject might be significant. Linux users number in the millions, most of whom are passionate about their operating systems and frustrated with the monopoly of Windows. Though perhaps a majority might not approve of 'PCJacking', a large proportion would be interested in the phenomenon, and non-Linux users besides — I should expect this conclusion would easily be borne out with a poll of Linux users — if you find otherwise, I shall only be happy to recant. If we follow the logic above on notability, all articles on Linux software which only a minority of Linux users employ should be deleted as being 'not notable'.

This should be enough establish the article's notability. RedRabbit (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as for WP:USEENGLISH, a quick look at the link in question will reveal it says nothing about a lack of English-language sources being a reason for deletion, contrary to what is assumed above; that article is about naming conventions. RedRabbit (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was how do we title the article if there's no English term for it, considering that the article is itself about a term? Foreign neologisms strike me as a bridge too far. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word was invented by a Frenchman, 'PCJacking' is a composite of two English words; therefore there is nothing 'foreign' about it. And the Frenchman in question generally writes in English (online, at any rate). In fact, 'PCJacking' is the English term, and there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate title for the article in keeping with WP:USEENGLISH. Note the English articles on the subject don't put 'PCJacking' in italics, as would be expected if the word were French — on the contrary, to a Frenchman the word would sound decidedly English. RedRabbit (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another 4 sources in English (yes, English) to the article. Altogether there are about 13 different articles about PCjacking linked to on the Wikipedia article, 6 in English, 7 not in English. And they don't all talk about Manu Cornet. Read them if you like. Even the Washington Post discusses PCJacking, but not under that name. Can we agree the subject is notable now? Or do you need another 10 sources? RedRabbit (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of new "references" do not use the term "PCjacking", they are about using Live CDs, which we already have an article on. Therefore they do not support keeping this article. Why should it not simply be merged as a short note into Live CD? Yworo (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. By the way, PCjacking rates a mention in a book. http://books.google.com/books?id=HhyXPPX0HSkC&pg=PA28&dq=%22PCjacking%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&hl=fr&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22PCjacking%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false I made a mistake with those references, but there are still a number of others, at least 9, supporting the article.(talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the dubious references. But I still think the nine articles already found on the subject (most of which have since benn removed) establish its notability. However, I am in favour of merging the article to LiveCd. RedRabbit (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, PCjacking has been referenced in three books. http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22PCjacking%22 RedRabbit (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the Books LLC book, they simply reprint collections of Wikipedia articles. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also scratch the one published by General Books, it's a vanity press. Getting your book published by them costs $18,000 - $25,000. Now that's vanity! Yworo (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that leaves one book. 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a quotation and translation from the book? Google isn't showing me contents for that book. If it's only mentioned in passing, then the notability is still in question. Yworo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extract in question is in German. I had to put it into Google translate to understand it; so any translation I give would be a best-guess approximation, not a reliable one. But I can write it out in German if you like. As for notability, there are about 10 online magazines that discuss 'PCjacking', and one book; and it has made it into many blogs and forums besides. I think its notability is established. RedRabbit (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "online magazines" are actually the blog sections of the same. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me of the notability. I wouldn't object to merging the content to Live CD and making this a redirect, though. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 October 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Katipana

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY as he does not appear to have played a professional or international match yet. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Keep. Appearances that weren't apparent before indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick Google search would have brought up over 1,000 results, including (on the very first page!) this site which confirms over 150 professional football appearances, meaning he clearly passes WP:ATHLETE...a lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 13:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - not lazy, just mistaken. My apologies for the error. Top Jim (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes our notability guidelines based on his play in fully-pro leagues and large number of sources covering his exploits. Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 11 October 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) 00:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirada

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

No sources, only the website link to the neighborhood's page. Also the neighborhood is unfinished yet is stating what each part of the neighborhood has. I vote delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL due to the lack of sources to verify anything, which qualifies it as speculation. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 03:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL; besides, unsourced neighborhoods are generally not notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 October 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 deleted as a probable hoax. Evil saltine (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Albright

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

"Erica Albright" may be fictional - there are no reliable sources, and several ghits indicate that the person does not exist. Questionable notability in any case. It's concievable that the article could be rewritten to reflect this, but I think it's a lost cause.The article may have been created as part of a social media strategy for the movie The Social Network. Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. See the talk page for proof. Mike Allen 04:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked "her" on facebook who David Desvouses was and "she" removed my comment and deleted me as a friend. There you go. Mike Allen 04:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a hoax PortP (talk) 04:52, 10 October 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) 00:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson James Cooke

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

Fails notability.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No entry in IMDb: so much for the acting and film producing claims. No sources found either. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used different search terms to look to verify anything in the article or on the talk page. There is no indication that he has worked on the movies listed, played in the Arena football league or played for Auburn. Nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No plausible assertion of notability, and there never has been in the article's history. Could be A7'd.--Michig (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was A7, but admin refused to do his homework Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The de-prodding admin did just fine... as the article had a reasonable (albeit unsourced) assertion of notability and was thus ineligible for A7. The required "homework" was done by you by your bringing it to AFD for discussion. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I get praised for bringing something to AfD instead of the occasional shouting-match... thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources, which indicates a non-notable actor. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valid Name changed from Jason Cook to Bryson James Cooke. Reason for this was his eligibility to join the Screen Actors Guild Union. Jason Cook of Days of Our Lives is with same union. No one in the union has the same name. Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke attended Auburn University with a foucs in Industrial Design.[6] Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke letterman at Auburn University. His number was 28. [7]AU Media Guide on page 23 lists the All-time Lettermans.[8] Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke was casted as Tyrone on the film Young Again (2012).[9]99.35.222.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- you're adding junk together; different person. the article claims there's a Bryson James Cooke born in 1979. the one you bring up is listed as 1980. apart from that, playing on some football team isn't reason for fame. neither is a movie that's yet to be made. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. The individiual needs a longer career to meet WP:ENT, and/or actual coverage of some sort to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 11 October 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. Will userfy on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldwell Inn Activity Centre

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

Organisation that makes no claim to significance or importance. The sole content of the article is a very extensive history of the area, 99% of which is not actually about the activity centre itself. Korruski^Talk 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough to indicate that an encyclopedia article is merited here. There are a couple of local news stories ([10], [11]), but that's about it.--Michig (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete looks like a giant copy and paste. nothing in gnews [12]. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a significant or important organisation in any way, very little sourcing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Coldwell, and recast immediately and completelyas an article about the locality. Or delete and userfy. --Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 14 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted Goals Against Average

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day -- author, who cites himself as the inventor of this statistic in the original version of this article, states on the talk page: "This is a new statistic but something I consider possibly revolutionary. It expands on a commonly accepted measurement (Goals against Average), resulting in a more accurate measure of the goalie's true ability. Please let me know any opinions on it. Alex Irwin" Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:MADEUP all in one. Failed to find reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be madeup, I found a source that discusses "Adjusted Goals Against Average" but it is a different concept than this. I found nothing outside of this article about this average. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as author openly admits that it is original research. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yep pure original research. Yoenit (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've said it all above.... Peridon (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't fall into any speedy-deletion category, or it would have gone already.--Michig (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR, no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Research. There's nothing wrong with advanced sports statistics, it's just that WP isn't the place to first publish them. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 October 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. Ged UK 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Lions–Port Adelaide AFL rivalry

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

Just another rivalry between 2 of the 16 teams in the league. They've met once in a Grand Final. Nothing else that significant. All of the refs refer to individual games, not really on any long standing rivalry. The-Pope (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Agree with the nominator. This was all I could find that discusses the rivalry much, claiming they were the best two performed teams of the 2000s. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are verifiable modern AFL rivalries between, say, West Coast and Essendon. No rivalry can be verified to exist between Brisbane and Port Adelaide. This article is an annotated list of AFL games between Brisbane and Port Adelaide. For a list to be kept,

every entry must meet notability criteria to have its own article in the English Wikipedia; or,

every entry in the list fails the notability criteria; or,

it is a short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.

~~The list~~ If the article were a list, ~~contains~~ it would consist of notable games: the second Qualifying Final, 2001; the second Preliminary Final, 2002; and the Grand Final, 2004. It would only pass muster as a list (as "List of AFL finals between Brisbane and Port Adelaide") if its items were those three games only. --BrisroyFan58 (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't written up as a list... it's written as an article, so the topic as a whole must satisfy the WP:GNG, not a synthesis of the individual items.The-Pope (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, the whole article must pass WP:GNG to be kept, and that's why I've !voted delete. Maybe I should have have explained myself better.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you, I just don't think a list of 3 finals games should exist as an article or a list either!The-Pope (talk) 12:46, 12 October 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) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded disambiguation page for which a speedy deletion request was declined. The redlinked items are to articles that have been deleted, and the two bluelinked items can be easily distinguished with hatnotes. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (One hatnote only, per WP:NAMB.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for a disambiguation page for 2 articles, a hatnote is just enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on deletion; the only reason that I declined it is that it didn't fit either of the criteria spelled out by the db-disambig template. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on whoever made the recent additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made the recent additions. Is there some reason you're pretending not to be aware of this? Also, redlinks with additional context are still redlinked, and they are redlinked due to deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, a red link with a blue ancillary link, is a valid link. If it isn't please quote from the rule directly. As is a valid see also link. I didn't add the new entries, I just cleaned them up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would merge the money shot with this article. King Ruby (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you sure you left this comment in the right place? That doesn't seem like a relevant merge. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Looks like it belongs to the Afd below. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With multiple articles sharing the same title, a dismbiguation page is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. Having this disambig now seems justified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a third article was created, and with it is a good disambiguation page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - There are three articles that all have AArdwolf, disambiguation page is useful. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a legitimate disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 07:34, 10 October 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) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Kaiser

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

Speedy declined on the grounds of "might be notable". I think not. Chris (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soruces below for her stlying work http://shine.yahoo.com/blog/GQKV6FTQY4BLOSCC565U7KKJLM/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.157.134 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any independent 3rd party sources? Something not written by the subject herself, or by someone she works for...

I don't think anyone is questioning whether she exists or has the job she has. The question is about whether or not she is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried, I really did, but I have to agree with the nom. I think not. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure vanispamcruftisement … lacks attribution to verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest notability/suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notably : worth of taking note of, using this definition Ariel Kaiser is givin note by ad week here www.adweek.com/.../e3i45a4bf33efc179175dfef6179493accf? Noteworthness seems to be situational and although it is not interesting to you her articles are getting thousands of comments as seen here http://shine.yahoo.com/event/the-thread/drew-barrymores-25-red-carpet-hit-2302282/. 170.200.168.24 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Batko-Yovino

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

WP:BLP1E, non-notable Geography Bee winner. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources listed, did find news articles for both Spelling Bee win and Jeopardy appearance in Major newspapers in search. AlgebraT (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Credit to her for winning the Geography Bee, but I don't see that as reason to have an encyclopedia article on her.--Michig (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I think WP:ONEEVENT applies. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:23, 10 October 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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pouët

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

A website that has received no coverage in reliable sources. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Michig, I can't find anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC
Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 10 October 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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Harris

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of minor mentions, but ultimately no notability VASterling (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain I've been a fan of Elise Harris's YouTube channel for over a year now. She has uploaded almost 400 videos and has had over 4 million views since 2006. Her most popular video accounts for 1 million of those views. On YouTube, she is ranked the 51st most popular comedian of all time. AlexPlante (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain Elise Harris does exist as a comedian. She has and still does appear at The Ship, 68 Borough Road, Southwark, London, ^[1] She has appeared at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and did so this year with Alex Marion and Paco Erhard as the comic trio, The Bald and the Beautiful ^[2]. A talented comedian and film maker, she has posted over 350 videos on YouTube and as can be seen on the YouTube site, has had in excess of a million hits. She has also filmed, edited and performed in the film Vestal Virgin and was winner of Best Actor award at the Super Shorts Film Festival. The film was also the official choice of the 2007 Paris Film Festival. Elise also has an entry on the Internet Movie Database listing the four films she has starred in. To delete Elise Harris from Wikipedia would deprive the human race knowledge of a very funny and talented lady. Citled (talk) 09:30, 6th October 2010 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Maintain I am disappointed to see the entry for this artist marked for possible deletion; I simply see nothing in the deletion proposal worthy of support. In almost two years of enjoyment of Elise Harris's many gently humorous YouTube videos (the statistics cited by other maintainers are pertinent and more than adequately answer the 'Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions' charge), any suggestion that she is not a significant presence, both on-line and in person at her many live performances, in the field of British comedy is not only wrong but, frankly, rather disparaging of an unusual, witty and very amusing artist. I do not view her Wiki entry as merely a resume (I am sure she will have done a far better job with her actual one). Four million on-line views, alone, surely marks this artist out as worthy for inclusion here in Wikipedia. [[User:RickyBee (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)]]— RickyBee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please address the policies in question, WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It is not the veracity or otherwise of the statements in the article and those above which are being addressed here. "Depriv(ation to) the human race (of) knowledge" or inclusion of it in Wikipedia is dependent on its notability, as laid out in these policies. Citations demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are not, as yet, evident. Mention in a listing is not independent and proof of appearance does not establish notability. There are many artists appearing in comedy clubs. Probably the majority of British actors and comedians have appeared in one capacity or other in Edinburgh as the Festival(s) and the Fringe constitute the biggest annual arts event on the planet: some sold out the Assembly Rooms, some held a spear in a school hall. Many films are shown at festivals of all statures (defunct now being that of the former Paris Film Festival). YouTube stats don't themselves establish notability either. But sig. coverage etc. of any of these would. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To new editors The word here is Keep, not Maintain. It is also not a good idea to use new identities to bolster your side, just in case anyone gets that idea..... This can be, and often is, checked out and can lead to blocking from editing if found to be the case. Also, the question of Elise's existence is unlikely to be the point of this discussion. Her notability is, and I would advise you to read at least WP:GNG and WP:RS before declaring your undying fandom. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything of particular note here, and agree with the nominator about the refs. Peridon (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"To delete Elise Harris from Wikipedia would deprive the human race knowledge of a very funny and talented lady" - Wikipedia is not here for promotion. If the human race (or at least the part of it that write the sources we consider reliable and not trivial) hasn't heard of her already, then she doesn't yet fit our rules. These may be seen as quirky, unfair, or whatever, but they are there. They are the rules of the site. Peridon (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Up and coming' comedian, but not there yet in terms of inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V, and agree that the "maintain" votes above strongly suggest this is a severely misguided promotion attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:N and WP:V. References #5, #6, #15 satisfy the following criteria: 1) They address the subject directly in detail, so no original research was needed to extract the content; 2) They encompass published works; 3) They are multiple secondary sources, independent of the subject; Also per WP:N "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". Also please refrain from insinuating that those who voted "Maintain" after me are really myself using multiple identities. I did not know the correct term, and evidently those who followed me just re-used the same term. It should not be surprising that at least 3 out of her thousands of followers on YouTube and Twitter would comment here.AlexPlante (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough because user has already !voted 'Maintain' - additional posts are 'Comment' or something like that. There's a lot to learn here... My comment about multiple !voting was to head off the possibility. We get a lot of sockpuppetry in AfD, and sometimes fan clubs who don't bother to read the policies at all. And we get worse than that.... Peridon (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #5 does not address the subject in any detail - the article isn't about her, #6 is bordering on local newspaper coverage but is about the only one that comes close to being adequate, #15 is not a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks attribution to verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … notwithstanding the subject's apparent fanboy popularity, YouTube videos and IMDb links do not WP:RS make. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{20:26, 11 October 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 Jeopardy!. Jujutacular ^talk 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Completely unsourced article about a non-notable game show tournament. No sources for participants, game scores, airdates, etc. Same reasons for deletion as listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some secondary coverage, cf.
- Mark Cooper. "TV Show Punches Memory Button." The News (Boca Raton). July 11, 1994. p. 1C. [13]
- Rakesh Agrawal. "Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." South Florida Sun Sentinel. July 22, 1994. p. 3B. (ProQuest) (describing Jim Brachman's appearance in the Seniors Tournament, as well as a Final Jeopardy! round in which he participated)
- Samantha Yost. "Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" Orlando Sentinel. May 22, 1987. p. 3. (ProQuest) (brief description of contestant Lee Saunders, mentions that he was "one of 15 national finalists" out of "thousands of people in a national search for senior contestants")
- Jesse Leavenworth. "You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" Hartford Courant. July 25, 1995. p. B1. (describes how the Jeopardy! writing team contacted Old Riverton Inn owner Pauline Telford for verification in a clue used during the Seniors Tournament taped in February 1995 that Elliot Shtier responded to correctly)

RJaguar3 | u | t 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of your notations...

"TV Show Punches Memory Button." - Human interest "A man will compete on a game show." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

I happen to think mentioning its existence, when it taped, when it is scheduled to air, the amount of the grand prize, and the length of time are quite significant facts about the actual tournament. The criterion involved is "significant coverage. Heck, I've cited casting notices and interviews about particular contestants for Legends of the Hidden Temple, even though you might decry them as "human interest." RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." - Essentially this is "A man appeared in a game show tournament and played Final Jeopardy." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

This article, like the previous one, mentions significant facts about the tournament, like its top prize, the minimum guarantee for finalists, when the final aired (the Thursday night prior to the article's publication), and some information about what happened on the individual episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" - A brief description of a contestant and that a game show held a national search (which several do, not just Jeopardy). Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

That Jeopardy! held a national contestant search to find 15 contestants for its tournament is a significant fact, just like the airdates of the particular contestant's episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" - Jeopardy verified info with the source about a clue that appeared on one episode of what happened to be part of a tournament. Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

It mentions in passing that the 1995 Seniors Tournament taped in February. But I do see your point with regard to this article. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply mentioning the phrase "Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament" in a publication does not make this article topic notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:GNG puts it: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The first three articles I believe more than trivially mention the seniors tournament. Even though the articles may be about contestants appearing on that tournament, this does not automatically make those articles trivial coverage. Also, coverage is not less significant if you brand the article as "human interest": this does not factor into significance of coverage. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's analysis of the sources Rjaguar dug up. As it stands, this is not separately notable enough for its own article, but it certainly warrants a mention in the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources show notability, despite being denigrated as "human interest". Yesterday a a source was denigrated as only an "interview". Reliable is reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main Jeopardy page. Total agreement here with Ten Pound Hammer. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
Merge - "Reliable is reliable" true, but it is not independantly notable. TPH hit it on the head this time. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:19, 11 October 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) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ice (group)

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

This group is not notable. They have one album. The only sources given are the myspace group for the group. Wlmg (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice-T. A collaboration between Ice-T and anyone else merits a mention somewhere.--Michig (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) A mention there that the two collaborated on this mixtape should be sufficient.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mention in the Ice-T article would suffice. As for merging other than the track listings, the whole article is two sentences so... Wlmg (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 05:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The collaboration of Ice-T with Black Silver as the group Black Ice as well as their album Urban Legends is already mentioned in the Analog Brothers article. So this article need not be merged.Wlmg (talk) 19:20, 18 October 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) 09:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marysia Kay

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per extensive filmography status. and overall notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a long list of film titles in the article but the notability of the vast majority is at best unclear, as is the significance or notability of her part in most of those thereof. Of the apparently notable films, notability of her part is without any indication or citation and, from what I can find, not possible to support. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm lets wait and see what some other users say.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Ill still say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "keep" per customer BabbaQ, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one is hard to assess, which isn't surprising considering it's been relisted twice. Going through the credits list, the vast majority are very minor roles. As an example, the credits list Stardust, which is technically true, but only as a "Clare Danes photo double" [14]. What is more telling, is a search for news articlesm which usually brings up something, even for minor and less well known actors, for this actress brings up nothing, save for an unrelated theater director with a similar name.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disappointed to see this - although Marysia is a minor actress of major roles in very minor films - or vice versa - she's a notable link across a body of small budget horror films which have been successful enough to continue to be made when other genres fail to work at this level. They tend not to get news visibility but in aggregate represent a notable phenomenon, which some people (like me) follow and enjoy. (Hope I got this process right!) --CornyAgain (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneliusagain (talk • contribs) [reply]

As maybe but (no) news visibility equates to (no) significant coverage in reliable sources. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actors are considered notable based on their work, and she's been in enough notable works to qualify. Dream Focus 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor association (particularly undocumented minor association) with something notable patently does not make one oneself notable. Doddy Wuid (talk) 08:14, 23 October 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. Without a clear steer on where the best redirect would be, I'm closing this as delete. Ged UK 18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Soul

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

I cannot find anything to show the subject's notability. References are needed to support, but I cannot find anything to verify his notability. either way (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect just another remixer - have his remixes been authorised by the artists or their labels? Have they attracted any attention in the relevant media? No. I suggest a redirect to either Stax Records, Memphis soul or Southern soul, which is what people think of when they see the words atlantic soul. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 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 Thurtene Carnival. Ged UK 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thurtene Honorary

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

Non-notable local student organization. No references to support notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Note that the 1 external link is about the organization's event (Thurtene Carnival), not the organization itself. GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thurtene Carnival, the article about this organization's most famous activity, which has more and better sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 gnews hits doesn't cut it [15]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Metropolitan. To my surprise the carnival appears to be notable, but the honorary society is not except for its connection to the carnival. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 16 October 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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy and Zoe Schlagel

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

Apparently non-notable actresses whose roles have been confined to bit parts to date. Acroterion _(talk) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These actresses have not yet established notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 11 October 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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clark (journalist)

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

I declined to speedy this as it does now have a low-grade claim of notability, but I doubt this individual actually meets the bar of notability. The Fox story out of Boston does mention him by name, but there is no in depth discussion of him as a person, it's a story on a prank that he is possibly linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Delsorted under "authors"? He writes a blog on wrestling and hosts an internet radio show on wrestling. I guess he is the author of the blog but it seems like a bit of a stretch. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm starting to think that perhaps a WP:PROD would have handled this... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Nikki♥311 18:18, 10 October 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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Per Zero

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

I was not able to find any writing about this company in reliable, independent sources. The chief claim to notability is that the company won a Design Award of the Federal Republic of Germany, but the linked page provided as a source does not confirm this award, and I was not able to find any evidence that this organization did get this award. The other claim to notability is that the company was given an International Design Excellence Award, but again, no confirmation of the award is available on that organization's web site.

Prod removed by creator after the addition of these "sources." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.german-design-council.de/en/designprize/designpreis-2010/gewinner.html, the site for the awards given by the German design council, has the record of Zero Per Zero winning the award, under their submission of the 'City Railway System.' They are second from the bottom. The second link was faulty and has been fixed to verify the award. Several other awards have been added under the 'awards' section. Syw1479 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems reasonable to keep given the various references and awards as notable sources. However, it's a bit of a stub and could probably use more "encyclopedic" content. --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete little coverage in gnews. for something to be worthy of inclusion it has got to get wider coverage than the industry it's involved in [16]. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 10 October 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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad B. Duberstein Moot Court Competition

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

I can find many cursory references, but the only meaty, substantial information to be found is on its website. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG for this reason. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, no sources I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 10 October 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) 00:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in two separate AfDs this year; still no significant coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that it is notable in any way. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have been restored after a deletion review : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_23

The main arguments are that :

- There is a few secondary source that did reviewed rekonq (see links at the end of the article).

- Rekonq is the default web browser in kubuntu 10.10 that will be out in one week.

So it can now be considered notable in some way. I guess the debate reduce to the question of how strict your view on notability is. Of course, Rekonq is far from being as big and well-known than firefox (and it will never be), but it can compare to other small open source web browser like arora (also based on Qtwebkit) or midori (also based on webkit). I can cite a few other web browser that have their wikipedia page and that can be compared to rekonq :

- Epiphany : older and better established than rekonq but still comparable in term of technology and audience.

- Uzbl : still alpha software, same type of technology than rekonq.

- Shiira : same type of technology than rekonq

- Stainless_(web_browser) : small technology preview commercial web browser. No secondary source.

I could continue the list (see List_of_web_browsers), but I think you get the point : you are applying strong notability criterion for Rekonq and at the same time there is similar or smaller projects, with no secondary source cited (may exist), that are in wikipedia. We need more consistency, otherwise it would feel like arbitrary or random removal decision. I believe that Wikipedia scope is not only to list the few top browsers, but gives information about the smaller ones. Even if their usage share is an order of magnitude smaller than those of the top browsers, they are used in real world in their specific "market" (users of KDE desktop in the case of Rekonq). Bzhb (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Still not seeing any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Default browser at least in Kubuntu and Chakra – two popular Linux distributions. That alone is enough. There are articles here for lesser useed, pre-alpha vaporware crap like GNU PDF and nobody challenges that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it that the article still has not even one secondary reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop making things up. There are sources in the article. Give proof why the sources are not reliable or shut up. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to its secondary sources, this article has a primary source. As of the release of Kubuntu 10.10, rekonq is now the default web browser for a major Linux distro. Why is this article even a candidate for deletion? Oconnor663 (talk) 08:10, 15 October 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.

[1] ttp://www.thestage.co.uk/listings/venue.php/6827/upstairs-at-the-ship-london

[2] ttp://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/2010/the_bald_and_the_beautiful/

[1]

[2]