Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 23

< 22 October	24 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 speedily deleted by User:Bsadowski1, this is a housekeeping closure, article has already been speedily delete under CSD A1 by an admin. Non-admin closure as per WP:NACD. --Hongkongresident (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShawndaLynn Johnson

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

This article contains many errors, including very scrambled info and no citations. Even the name may be scrambled ChckMeOwt (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been speedy deleted under CSD A1. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 04:58, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of 2011

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

Not surprisingly, this article is currently almost completely empty. I've no objection to this article being re-created next year, but it seems a little premature to have an article on the history of a future time (other than relating to a series of novels or films, say). Until January 1st it's destined to be either empty or crystalballsery. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it, its not a big problem if the article stays. No-one will take the duty of creating it again in 2011. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I said - it's blank, and it invites people to make unfounded predictions. As to no-one will be bothered to re-create it, you'd be surprised. There are at least three wikiprojects which cover global weather, and it's part of an ongoing series (e.g., Global storm activity of 2009, Global storm activity of early 2010). I seriously doubt that there won't be someone itching to create this as soon as January rolls round. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's way too early to create an article it specially when we don't know a single thing about it. As Grut said, this should be re-written next year otherwise it'll stay empty like a junkyard *no offense*. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The earth might be struck by a rogue planet and stripped of its atmosphere sometime in the next two months. (i.e. WP:Crystal ball) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of tropical cyclone names, which contains everything that can be said about 2011 for the next 2 months. There is the naming problem in that due to article size and prior history it should be "early 2011", and should presumably be later redirected to that name. (But even the series itself is poorly managed because both 2010 article time ranges do not match their leads.) Ordinarily I'd keep an empty fillable article just as an inclusionist, but unlike the AFD on 2026 reliable sources just don't comment about this; Googling "2011 storms" was surprisingly sterile. Delete is a backup vote because per the (scattershot) series we really don't need this exact title, but I generally prefer redirecting everything to something, even if it ignores WP:EGG. JJB 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The !votes that comply with policy are almsot entirely one-sided. Consensus is that this is not notable enough for an article. Courcelles 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atpic

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable photo sharing site. I am unable to find independent and verifiable, third party coverage of this site. Alexa rank is over 600k (admittedly a poor metric in determining notability though). VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, If you came here because of an atpic community email or discussion, remember that this discussion is not a vote. I have been using atpic for years now, and I think it's a great site offering an excellent free service, but I'm not convinced that it's notable. If you would like to make a case for notability, please see the notability criteria for websites and demonstrate here that atpic satisfies them. Also please declare any conflicts of interest that you might have. --Slashme (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly promotional entry on an obscure photosharing site. There's nothing to back up any claims of notability. The only results are classified ads for an unrelated service dating back to the 1950s-1980s.--hkr Laozi speak 05:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure how you managed to get those 10 results from google. A plain URL request asking for the site's name not coming for the site itself http://www.google.com/search?q=atpic.com+-site%3Aatpic.com returns 15k+ results Alexmadon (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Atpic is a generic name. There are a lot of things called Atpic. "Atpic photosharing", which is the subject of the AfD, brings up 10 results on Google News, which is more relevant. Also, since you've admitted that you're the creator of Atpic, the conflict of interest issue remains. --hkr Laozi speak 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry but the creator of the page can participate to this talk. The +atpic.com will search the EXACT string (the five letters followed by the dot followed by the three letters). As on the Internet DNS names are unique, that search guarantees that (almost) all results will be about this site! Alexmadon (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said you couldn't. I said that editing the Atpic article is a clear conflict of interest, and it is. I apologise for the second part, I didn't notice you had "atpic.com" as your search term (you can't blame me, I was half asleep...). But the point remains. Google News shows 10 results, mostly trivial or unrelated. You would have known had you clicked my link, and I'll admit I should have read your comment carefully before replying (I guess we're both half asleep, eh?). You need a lot more than that to get this article kept. And so far you haven't demonstrated that!--hkr Laozi speak 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest you write I believe (or think) you haven't demonstrated that rather than you haven't demonstrated that, just for respect of the users who do not think like you. Alexmadon (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done nothing but refer to the WP:N criteria, which is established consensus. These are not my personal beliefs, as you've implied, they are guidelines that all articles on Wikipedia must follow. Your customers may want this article kept, and that's perfectly fine, but this is an enclopedia with rules and policies for inclusion. Please understand that I've got nothing personally against you or the customers at Atpic. The article just needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to kept, and it hasn't.--hkr Laozi speak 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        there are no customers here, as the site is free and as there is no company either. Please use the word users or community members. Alexmadon (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also you wrote that search returns 10 results? OK, I know that I have to assume good faith, but here I think you are pushing a bit too far; Even a plain google search with atpic photosharing i.e. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atpic+photosharing returns 1.5k results! Maybe your google is not the same as my google... I attach a screen shot at: http://pic.atpic.com/2026404 of the google results for that request Alexmadon (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me clarify: Google News returns 10 results, and that's the search that matters. Normal GHITs aren't factored in since the results are mainly trivial, forum posts are not considered by policy to be reliable sources. After all, we are hunting for sources as required by WP:N, and not a random posting on Twitter, aren't we? ;)--hkr Laozi speak 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also note that Alexa rank is 632,932... for comparison's sake, the similar site Flickr is ranked 36. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the alexa stats cannot cope with the site multi subdomains (username.atpic.com). Look at the quantcast stats instead: http://www.quantcast.com/atpic.com?country=FR Those are direct measurements with a javascript async call to quantserve servers. Rank France 869 on Quantcast, rank France 29,892 on Alexa (a factor 34!!!) The firefox plugin of Alexa just sucks. It just means that the population using Atpic does not like to to install the Alexa plugin... Alexmadon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok, I debated not mentioning the Alexa rank in my nomination and in retrospect probably should not have due to the distraction factor. Have nontrivial, independent works been published about this subject? VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment mmm, I cannot find the previous Deletion request page but that has already been discussed. Atpic is not an idea, it is a web site. If you have doubts about the truth of what is written in the wikipedia page, just open a (free) atpic account and check by yourself what is written is true. Alexmadon (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. "just open a (free) atpic account and check by yourself" That's blatant advertising, and on the AfD too! For shame, sir. Also, the flood of single-purpose accounts is not helping your case.--hkr Laozi speak 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, no advertising here. Just checking facts. What flood are you talking about? Please do no bite newcomers. Or are you talking about your 10 days old account? Alexmadon (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm referring to all the keeps below me, that "mysteriously" popped out of the woodwork when initally, it was all deletes. Pointing out an observation not directed at any specific user is not biting, I mean, just look at their keep rationales: "I am a happy user of it since 2004" and "Great Service!". Be civil and assume good faith, you've linked to the article, now practice what you preach. I'm relatively new too (and it's 15 days now, about half a month!) so you don't try biting me either! That's not to say I haven't participated or edited as an IP address before. --hkr Laozi speak 21:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above, the site is notable and I am a happy user of it since 2004. I guess not PR article can be found on the internet because the site is free and the site owner never wanted to invest in a PR article. Photoact (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not relevant according to Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely is popular. Rather than ranking, check the number of users and site activity.(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.9.217 (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not relevant according to Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above : notable site. User since... 1994 and very happy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistouille (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Atpic. It's service right for me. I use it 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.222.250 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Atpic! Great service! Easy to use and to create an account. You can upload pics with different resolutions. Very happy with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.31.144 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been using Atpic for a few years now , free hosting , no banners , what else could one want ! Keep the atpic site at wikipedia !!!!! Queezel

Keep. Not only does atpic include features not available on most free photo-sharing websites, most notably ftp upload and direct linking, the notability objection is without merit. atpic has been mentioned both online and in print. A paperbook presently available at amazon.com includes a chapter about atpic: http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Sharing-Websites-Mobileme-Polanoid/dp/1155680111, also atpic is noted on the following websites: http://photo-sharing-websites.no1reviews.com/atpic.html, http://www.shortcourses.com/display/display1-11.html, http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.atpic.com/, http://digitalweddingguide.com/websites-to-show-your-photography-portfolio-business, http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews146809.html, http://www.ilikesharingvideos.com/video-sharing-sites/en/atpic/sort-alphabetically/. atpic.com is a useful, non-commercial, photo-sharing website. It's omission from Wikipedia would hurt the public good by limiting users' options for photo-sharing and direct linking to pictures. When a free and unique-featured service is available to Internet users, we should collectively make an effort to make descriptive information available to Wikipedia users. Otherwise we will all be forced to use only commercial services offered by the big guns at a price they determine. --Woodyrox (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not for promoting any organisation or individual. It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A note to newcomers: Whether or not you use the site is irrelevant. If you want to save the article, get some references that comply with WP:RS and WP:GNG and add them to the article (and tell us here. In the meantime, no references means no indication of notability given. As a matter of interest, the French Wikipedia article was deleted earlier this month, and I've removed the transwiki link to the German language Wikipedia, as the article there wasn't about Atpic and had been deleted in 2007 anyway. The Russian transwiki link goes to an article on photosharing with no mention of Atpic, so I've removed that too. Otherwise, per nom. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that my delete is based on the article and not the product or service. I don't use photosharing (except for avatar hosting elsewhere) and have no opinion on the greatness or otherwise of Atpic. It is not shown to comply with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. You can do something about that. Read the policies I've mentioned, and get the proof that it is notable. Your opinion doesn't count. Proof does. See WP:V. You can save the article (and have a moment of glory), but it won't be by posts like those so far made in support. It'll be by work. Peridon (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I made changes to the article's "References" and "External links" sections by adding some of the info from my discussion post. But being a newcomer, I am uncertain if I did this properly. Please let me know if more is needed. --Woodyrox (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last... You could do to get some independent sources that we here can check. Books are valid sources, but are somewhat suspect to those of us who frequent AfD if nothing else is around.... You've usually got about a week on AfD. The refs to folksonomies (or whatever...) are OK to have, but you must show Atpic's notability. Atpic site is no good as a ref, and forums and blogs are not much good - but the existence of an Atpic specific forum might help. Non-PR stuff is needed - independent reviews are quite good. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too modified the Atpic page with an extra book reference: Digital Photography for Next to Nothing: Free and Low Cost Hardware and Software to Help You Shoot Like a Pro, John Lewell (Author) Excerpt - page 281: " ... FREE, supported by other income. Atpic A very small site, developed and maintained in France mostly by Alex Madon, Atpic, shown in Figure 30.1, is FREE ... " Paperback: 384 pages Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (14 May 2010) Language English ISBN 978-0470687260 Product Dimensions: 23.1 x 18.5 x 2.5 cm Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 132,777 in Books. Atpic is mentioned as one of the best (should I say notable?) free photo sharing sites at Part VII: Sharing & Publishing your work, Chapter 30: FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites, Selected FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites. Getting the excerpt is easy: just search for Atpic on amazon. I attached a screen shot also at: http://pic.atpic.com/2019119 for those who have doubts. John Wiley & Sons is generally seen as a very serious publisher so I hope that this DOES count for notability. Alexmadon (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are too few to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline. And they are trivial mentions, you need sources that focus on the subject, not just listing Atpic among a bunch of other photosharing sites.--hkr Laozi speak 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a popular site which provides a good service. I actually found out about it from wikipedia. Thomas d stewart (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what is the joke? Which criteria Atpic brakes, what is the reason for deletion? Atpic.com is the most advanced photo hosting service, covering Google Picasa, Microsoft photo.live.com, Yahoo Flickr, among many others. Only Imageshack.us (Yellow Frog) is comparable with Atpic.com. I am a proud user of Atpic hosting, Opera browser, Mercury & Pegasus Mail, Textpattern CMS, and other best products — should we remove all them from Wikipedia for lack of popularity among simpleton users? -- Vienuolis (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read my posts above? (This applies to the two posters above this.) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Peridon (talk)

I guess that what Vienuolis means is that wikipedia ought to mention not only the most notable sites but also the alternatives. Like for the tag links on the wikipedia page, there is a power law here too: the most popular photo sharing site (or whatever subject specific site), will take 90% of the market share, then the next most important will take say 6% of the market share, etc... so the real question is where to cut the long tail? To me, the site is notable enough to have its wikipedia page.

To you, perhaps. But on Wikipedia, all articles have to follow the notability guideline. No exceptions. And this article does not meet any of the required criteria.--hkr Laozi speak 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no exceptions? Then you will need to remove most of the wikipedia. Other photo sharing sites listed in the wikipedia do not have more books or article links to prove notability than atpic, see: BlueMelon, Woophy, Piczo for instance. Most of them already went through AfD and were kept. THIS ARTICLE too went through AfD and was kept but somebody deleted the previous talk. Too bad. This page should be named AfD 2nd nomination and should include the first debate.Alexmadon (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the "other stuff exists" argument is a weak one, for a very simple reason: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article."--hkr Laozi speak 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is wikipedia meant to record popular things, or explain stuff? If it is, it really should be dropped as a reference site. Could the real issue here be how to present all of the photo recording sites? Photo sharing is the real topic, and the means should really be subtopics. 2049, October 24, 2010, UTC jsae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.97.23 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the site has decent google counts, it is almost always mentioned in photo sharing comparison reviews, some books cite the site, the quantcast rank is very good. (Also as the site allows hot linking, hotlinks won't trigger a count to the ranking sites, on the contrary to applets). All this to me is enough to qualify for a keep. Tutankabron (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've never been involved in a topic deletion process. How does this process proceed and how is the final decision made? --Woodyrox (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodyrox: the whole process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. The relevance of the deletion of a page is generally discussed during one week, or more if no clear decision can be made after one week of debate. Thanks Alexmadon (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final decision is made by a closing admin, someone who hasn't taked part in the discussion but who reads through the page here (and sometimes I feel very sorry for the unfortunate admin. I don't know if they choose or are chosen. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When looking for a non-commercial hosting photo site, atpic was one of the sole alternatives. Is that not remarquable enought ? Remind that Flickr is own by yahoo and Picassa by Google ! These sites works by putting ads online and by selling your personal data. I found this site thanks to Wikipedia, actually. It would be really a sad from wikipedia to delete the article. Ah, and I think google search scores are a really poor way of evaluating the interest for a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.11.20 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nit pick: you can't have one of sole alternatives - sole means the only one and there are no others. We don't count the Google scores as such - it's what comes up that's searched through for sources meeting WP:RS. If you all really want to save this article, READ the policy and put the references in. Don't just waffle on about how good it is - PROVE IT. We aren't trying to get this deleted for fun. It's because there's no indication it meets OUR requirements for articles. I'd be happy enough to see it survive - with the necessary additions... Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon, with the help of google, I added to the references section three papers mentioning Atpic, what do you think? They are not paper about Atpic but they mention Atpic as an example in their paper. I'd say that this shows somehow the notability of Atpic.Alexmadon (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A French research paper about folksonomies gives Atpic and Flickr as photo sharing sites examples, IC2010 Ingenierie des connaissances, Nimes, France (2010) "Les motifs sequentiels au service de la structuration des folksonomies", Sandra Bringay, Maguelonne Teisseire, Julien Gomila, Damien Hoffschir and Thibault Vicaire. A copy can be retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/77/32/PDF/IC_2010_VF.pdf

A UK paper cites (page 270) Flickr, Picassa and Atpic as social photo sharing networks Journal of Media Practice Volume 10 Number 2&3, p267-272, Intelect 2009 'The changing flux in the photograph at the precipice of change: the phototrix and the death of the photograph', Yon Marsh, North East Surrey College of Technology, UK. A copy can be retrieved from: http://www.yonmarsh.org.uk/phototrix/Phototrix.pdf

A Greek research paper writes about photo sharing sites "such as Atpic, Flickr, Imageshack, ipernity, Jalbum,. Photobucket, Piczo.com, Picasa, SmugMug, Webshots, and. Zooomr." in An Automatic Multi-Agent Web Image and Associated Keywords Retrieval System Papadakis, N. Ntalianis, K. Doulamis, A. Stamoulis, G. Comput. & Commun. Eng. Dept., Univ. of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Systems, Signals and Image Processing, 2009. IWSSIP 2009. 16th International Conference on Issue Date: 18-20 June 2009 On page(s): 1 - 4 Location: Chalkida Print ISBN: 978-1-4244-4530-1 INSPEC Accession Number: 11023559 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/IWSSIP.2009.5367695 Date of Current Version: 28 December 2009 A copy can be retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5367684/5367685/05367695.pdf?arnumber=5367695

Note that these are just trivial sources and the WP:N guideline requires sources that focus on the subject of the article. A brief mention among a long list of photosharing sites does not satisfy WP:N.--hkr Laozi speak 12:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An encyclopaedia exists not only for the purpose of dealing with mainstream topics, but also makes a point of dealing with less common ones. If Atpic is little known, who cares? Someone is bound to go fishing for information about it anyway. Plus, if Wikipedia reduces exposure of little known sites/topics, it indirectly keeps promoting better known ones. Athomic69 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do! An online encyclopedia is still an encyclopedia. Simply existing does not merit an article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Check out the guidelines and policies at WP:N and WP:NOT.--hkr Laozi speak 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Added another source which mentions atpic. It's an eBook from shortcourses.com, a website which specializes in photography ebooks. The eBook can be found at http://www.shortcourses.com/store/display2.html, the specific mention of atpic is in the "Taxonomy and Folksonomy" section in the "Publishing Your Photos -- Photo Sharing Sites" chapter which is linked here http://www.shortcourses.com/display/display1-11.html. --Woodyrox (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the goals of Wikipedia is to broaden the horizons, introduce new topic -- and new sites! Atpic is an example of photo-sharing web sites. As such, Wikipedia should cover it!...

Dr. LL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.237.180 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they need to be referenced. Instead of telling us regulars how Wikipedia works, why not read the policies WP:GNG and WP:RS and then discuss it - or even better, get into gear and FIND the references. It's not up to US - see WP:BURDEN. Sorry if this seems like biting - I do get tired of people not taking any notice when they're told. This doesn't apply to Woodyrox etc who are trying.Peridon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Currently, despite there being a numerically high figure of keep votes, the logic for keeping is absent in most, leave two of them. Assuming good faith on the ips, I have no issues in relisting this AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it is the best photo hosting site or not (is there some objective measure of this?) is immaterial. It does not satisfy the criteria listed in WP:N. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't much else to say here (Peridon definitely drove the point home), but...what part of WP:N do you keep !voters not understand? Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Admittedly, ATPIC references are scarce, which should make it hard to match WP:N. However, Google returns close to 30000 direct links to atpic user galleries, which suggests at least that many people know it, use it, presumably point their acquaintances to it. I suggest we appreciate WP:N against that proven 30000 audience. Athomic69 (talk) 09:20, 03 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:WEB miserably, Alexa and google hits are irrelevant. Multiple SPAs !voting seems to indicate some form of puppetry. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 4 November 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 Brown-Forman. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Garvin Brown III

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

Not notable person, limited coverage CTJF83 chat 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown-Forman, WP:BIO#Family. The company his great grandfather founded is notable. His great grandfather is notable. But he, by himself, is not.--hkr Laozi speak 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown-Forman, per Hkr and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 26 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. Aside from accounts that apparently only exist to !vote in this discussion, a consensus to delete is clear. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly S. Eustis

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

Non-notable partisan activist whose career seems to consist mostly of coming in last in a small-town election and feuding with a minimally notable talk radio personality. Most references are promotional or are mentions of the subject in passing, often in small-town newspapers. All substantive content appears to come from SPAs, raising the likelihood that socking's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody made a real effort, but still fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Small town newspapers don't count? Such as New York Times and POLITICO? Hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 75.45.10.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per past precedent at WP:OUTCOMES. This is a local activist who made some noise to become a person in the news, but hasn't gotten there yet. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely for a similar Upstater who is not yet ready for notability. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed small-town political candidate, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lots of references are provided but most are trivially local; he gets a few mentions in mainstream articles in Reliable Sources, but the articles are about the organization he was formerly associated with, the "America Deserves Better PAC". There is nothing actually about him, thus fails WP:GNG. The article seems like it exists mainly to promote his consulting firm. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete He was a young candidate, obviously influential in rising political movement, and will likely move on to better things besides bickering. Don't delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocpoliticalguy — Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete Even though I despise the kid in every way, I wouldn't want my article to be deleted. --MarkWilliamsTP (talk)
Delete Looks like this article is another bit of his polemics. No, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Not soapbox, and not for boosting someone's political or business career. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete If it's all factual, with press evidence to back up each claim, how does that boost a person's career? There's both good and bad stuff on here. Just don't understand your concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGOPer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — NYGOPer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The concept is explained here: WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are thin on the ground, mentioning Eustis only in passing or not at all. The votes in support look strongly like recruited proxy votes. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ That's ridiculous ("not at all"). Every article on there mentions him or else it wouldn't be there. Eustis is often the primary interviewee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm striking out your "Do not delete" here and below, since you "voted" that way already. You only get one "vote" - although you are welcome to comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The following sources do not mention Eustis at all: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. One [6] generated a "file not found" error. The interviews in which Eustis is the primary focus all seem to come from the Glens Falls Post-Star newspaper, whose interest is partly that Eustis is a local resident. All of this speaks poorly to his notability. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well delete other Republican consultants like Patrick Ruffini and Scott Howell then! Just doesn't make sense. This kid is referenced more than most others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think their articles don't fit Wikipedia's standards, please feel free to tag them or bring them to AfD. Somehow, I don't think you will..... Peridon (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ You've got to be joking. All except the one that goes to the OCDB website (since he left them, thus no longer listed, and could be removed as a reference) have Eustis answering questions or giving statements -- there's things called "pages" in articles. Some of the articles have up to four pages (POLITICO, NYT, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Eustis is mentioned only on the fourth or fifth page of a reference, then the reference should really use the URL for that page. Unfortunately, this doesn't really help the case for his notability, as it just confirms that these are all passing mentions of his name in articles on other subjects. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's obviously becoming notable. He's a consultant in a movement that is involved in one of the most historic elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - That may be true, but "becoming notable" isn't one of the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Being already notable is. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Just added a Boston Globe article that featured Eustis as a young, up-and-coming leader in the movement who is making a difference at the grassroots level... yes, folks, there are "small people" who are making waves. Plus I edited his dead references and fixed some things. I recommend no deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGOPer (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck - You cannot !vote multiple times. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I am clearly not seeing why this article should be deleted. It seems like a partisan act to destroy a reputation to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.19.191 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — 98.255.19.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete reading the sources almost all are only mentions or quotes by Eustis and the rest don't confer notability and the most significant things left are that he was an unsuccessful candidate for local public office and worked for the Tea Party Express until October 2009. That's not enough. Hekerui (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs all seem to be "in passing", and I see nothing that discusses the subject in any detail or demonstrates sufficient notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 30 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) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Movies

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

Too broad a category..does it include minor witch roles? I just watched Snow White yesterday, and her stepmother is never called a witch. CTJF83 chat 03:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many articles could be included, very vague category. I like how the creator included a link to Webster's Dictionary as a reliable source. You can tell he's trying. :) --hkr Laozi speak 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a big unsourced trivia dump like "witches in popular culture" only even more narrow and unhelpful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. The consensus is to redirect until there is either significant coverage of Waugh at independent reliable sources, and/or until he wins the election -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Waugh

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This one is open and shut. Ray^Talk 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ray this is not open and shut. Rick Waugh like his opponent Floyd Bayne is notable as he has been covered by all major media in the Virginia 7th district, has been reported in national news (Waugh covered by the Rachel Madow show) just like Floyd bayne has been covered by all major media in the district and national media (Bayne has also been covered in international media). So both candidates are notable. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not. He was nominated by party leaders [7]. This is the second time you have claimed someone was "elected" in a primary election when in fact they were not. Please get your facts straight before citing them here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per usual practice. The only article cited about him, in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, even describes him as "little-known". There's a reliable source telling us he is not notable! --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If 96.228.59.55 can provide links to all this coverage s/he claims, such as an appearance by Waugh on the Rachel Maddow show, I might change my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I never claimed Waugh was on the Rachel Maddow Show. I said his campaign was covered by the Rachel Maddow Show. His campaign was covered regarding his campaign signs being targeted with racial slurs. All You Had to do was SEARCH "RICK WAUGH RACHEL MADDOW" and walla http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/24/4963103-ugly-and-almost-misspelled-in-virginia Ray and others on wiki appear to be to lazy to do Google word search's 96.228.59.55 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the link. (And just a tip, you will get a lot further here by supplying links to support his notability - rather than name-calling others for not finding them.) The link appears to be from the Maddow BLOG, rather than the Maddow show, but it is still a hint toward more general notability. Have you got any more like that? --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. As with Bayne, he will be notable if he wins. The Eskimo (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Lets redirect this article. This candidate is less notable than Floyd Bayne is and hes the democrat. If you redirected Mr. Bayne's then you need to redirect Mr. Waugh.s Fair is Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyactivist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Libertyactivist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, Libertyactivist went ahead and redirected the article, even though this AfD discussion is still going on. The redirect was reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

the discussion seemed to be over and an administrator told me that anyone could do a redirect. Plus this article is just as notable or un-notable, depending on your opinion, or less notable than the Floyd Bayne article, so it should suffer the same fate. We need to move this process on. I hope nobody is trying to keep this article through the election but not the Bayne one. I would hope and pray no one would do thaton Wiki. I like wiki. Lots to learn:) Libertyactivist (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before participating in Afds. It's generally not proper to redirect an article during an open Afd. As far as closing, Afds usually last 7 days so you can expect this one to close very soon. Location (talk) 19:38, 30 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) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla's Model Management

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

No significant coverage, and certainly no discussion of this agency anywhere--their only claim to fame seems to be their connection with Australia's Next Top Model. See this search, which unearths nothing that (in my mind) helps the subject pass WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete my vote is to weak delete, because it has few notability. Priscilla's is a sponsoring model agency of Australia's Next Top Model since the third series. Alice Burdeu is a most successful model and signed in that agency when she won the show back three years ago. Also, Chic Management (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Management), another Sydney model agent represented the first two series of the show, it has a sponsorship in another Top Model show, New Zealand's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Abbey

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

Delete. Non-notable event. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 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, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable enough to merit its own article (even a stub). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pepper

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

Recreation of article that has already been deleted twice, the last time was when a "new user" copy/pasted the previously deleted article. As said at the previous AfD, self published work, blogs, and facebook accounts do not establish notability. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:GNG. I've tried to look for secondary reliable sources, but there are none. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need work, but it is a notable subject. Just needs some time. 7edde (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, AgadaUrbanit, and WP:BAND. No evidence of notability. JNW (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Google returns over 60,000 results for the band alone. And there have been multiple, country-wide concert tours and tours with other notable, billboard charting artists. 7edde (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, 7edde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who appeared right after the AfD was instituted and whose editing history also suggests he is the IP address that effectively voted "keep" above. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence things have significantly changed (or indeed changed at all) since the last deletion decision. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Should probably also be SALTed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and looks like (self?)-promotion attempt. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note that was my post under an IP address before having an account. 7edde (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (music). These guys have notable releases and toured the US. I'd like to help get the references up to par Jasonb80 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note additional citation has be added to the article. Jasonb80 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posts in publically-editable forums are not WP:RS, and blog entries that list the names of bands playing at minor venues does not establish Notability. If that were the case, every high school or college band would qualify for a Wikipedia article. There needs to be third party articles ABOUT the article subject that are written by mainstream media outlets; having ones name appear in a list of bands playing at a venue like "Foosian Village Art Festival" does not make one notable. So far, both Peter Pepper and the band he is sometimes associated with, have failed to produce WP:RS in Google and other searches. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but perhaps Mr. Pepper needs to gain a bit more fame and notarity before having his own Wikipedia article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National performances at concert venues with capacities over 1000 people such as House of Blues, the Masquerade and the like does establish Notability. Additionally, having completed one or more concert tours of a major world market also establishes Notability. And those tours being shared with other notable bands such as the Mindless Self Indulgence (held the #1 #2 and #5 positions, US Billboard Hot Singles Sales simultaneously), Combichrist (spent more than 6 weeks in the top 10 Hot Dance Billboard Charts) and others also establishes Notability. This article needs work, I agree, so I've added a Refimprove to the article and will continue to improve. Jasonb80 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Go on, then. Produce the goods and I'll turn. To a poster above - that's not 60,000 ghits for the band. There's a variety of chilli, '23 people in the UK', a company apparently named 'PETER PEPPER & DUSTY BIN', a character from BurgerTime (whatever the heck that is...) and Peter Pepper Products - all in the first three pages. One mention there for the band. This article. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note there are over 60,000 Google results for subject's music group "Retard-o-bot". 7edde (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142,000 on google.co.uk... The first 12 pages consisted entirely of what I feel are unreliable sources by Wikipedia (WP:RS. I gave up and returned to my tea then. WP:BURDEN Peridon (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 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 Cartoon_Network_Original_Series_and_Movies. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network's Big Pick

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

Completely unsorced, this article has no citations, no sources. Fails meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cartoon Network Original Series and Movies. Some animation showcases are considered notable if they've been on television for years (Oh Yeah! Cartoons comes to mind, remember watching that as a kid), but since this one was on for such a short while, a redirect would be appropriate.--hkr Laozi speak 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lingering Cartoon Network cruft from 2004 which has escaped scrutiny until now. With only two successful projects out of 14 (a 14% success rate) it's obvious the notability hasn't stayed around over the years, and there aren't any sources for this at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two out of forteen is hardly bad, considering the context. Usually, for animation showcases, or any showcases for television pilots, none of the shows get picked up. The fact that the showcase spawned two successful series is impressive. While I agree that it shouldn't be kept as a separate article, a redirect would be a much more viable option then simply deleting it. --hkr Laozi speak 12:32, 29 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, JJ98 (Talk) 18:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cartoon Network Original Series and Movies as a valid search term. The content of this article is unsourced, and thus fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, so I would not be opposed to a delete and redirect. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 31 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. clearly don't meet our inclusion standard. If anyone wants to do the transwiki let m know and I will temp undelete for the purpose Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships in the Total Drama series

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

This article does not meet general notability guidelines and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe listing the "romantic relationships" of the characters from a cartoon is not significant enough to warrant its own article. -WANINOKOZ ^(TALK) 00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete oh god, get rid of this before we get one for every other kids' cartoon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While fictional relationships can be notable, (even fan pairings), these relationships do not seem to be notable and would be better suited to Total Drama Wiki. Could it be transwikied there? --Malkinann (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, merge, and trim per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, merge and trim per the above, Sadads (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Sorry, I'm not the most experienced with Wikipedia yet. Does an admin take care of this? Or do we have to? -WANINOKOZ ^(TALK) 13:56, 26 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. The article may need clean-up (and possibly renaming) - but these are not reasons for deletion. I suggest that a rename request be made on the article's talk page, and a discussion take place there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary

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

This article is a collection of unreferenced esoteric data. In particular, it does not appear meet the Wikipedia guidelines for: 1) "Excessive listing of statistics" per WP:WWIN, 2) Verifiability (WP:V), 3) No Original Research (WP:NOR), and 4) WP N (in general). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP should be about articles to read, and other things (like lists etc.) supporting that. It's not for raw census data, by "not a directory." Or failing that some of the other policies cited above. Or by "WP:Don't waste your time writing an article you wouldn't want to read." Or by "WP:Readers are not stupid. You can not write an article without sources. If people want this information they can go to the same sources." -Steve Dufour (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ as unsourced and unverifiable. I recognize that, in 2006, information about the 1910 census might have been unavailable on the internet and that the author might have relied upon an old book for the numbers and just forgot to mention things like the title and publisher, but that's a lot of "might haves". I'd change my mind if someone could locate a source. Mandsford 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced, to the Révai nagy lexikona, a major encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the author wrote "Sources: Révai Nagy Lexikona", though that's not much different than writing, "Somewhere in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica". I guess the guy wasn't into things like page numbers and such. Looks like Gregory B has found something as noted below. Mandsford 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I just wanted to point out that the link GregorB has provided below is to a scanned PDF copy of the entire book Révai Nagy Lexikona. I believe your analogy to the source being "Somewhere in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica" is still very much true. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's pretty obvious that the source of this material is the 1910 national census, which would have been the last before the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I. Thus the rather esoteric date DOES have a significance. Should a better sourcing note have been made? Of course. Is this enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Not in my opinion. As we are well aware, nationality questions remain a burning topic in Europe and this strikes me as fully encyclopedia-worthy as topic and retention-worthy in terms of standing content. I'll put up a RESCUE banner in the hope that more definite sourcing materializes. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I certainly agree with you about the nationality questions in Europe and a Wikipedia article on the demographics of Hungary is definitely important. But there already is a well-written article about the Demographics of Hungary that contains data, analyses, references, etc., and also addresses the evolution of the demographics of Hungary through a long period of history. Given the existence of this article, I feel that the AfD (the Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary) does not have as much value as it would have if the article on the Demographics of Hungary did not exist (regardless of it being simply a list of data). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing particularly "esoteric" about the data. It took me literally two minutes to find a possible online source: http://mek.oszk.hu/06700/06758/pdf/. Provided this could be used, there's no reason to delete. GregorB (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find. Each volume of the encyclopedia is imaged, and the search engine on the page will lead to what's inside a volume (for instance, type in "Abaúj-Torna" and it goes quickly to the article within Volume I). Google translate does have a function for Hungarian to English, so there's hope for someone to back the article up. Mandsford 15:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, thank you for posting the link to the scanned PDF copy of Révai nagy lexikona. I feel you took offense to my use of the word esoteric, and I would like to apologize for using it. I simply feel that the AfD is a list of data with no analysis. If the title of the article is something like "Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary (1720-1910)" I don't have a problem with it. This article, however, is titled as an "article" instead of a "list" and so it automatically gives the impression that it provides an exposition of the demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary with analysis based on the data. Also, there already is a good article on the Demographics of Hungary in the English Wikipedia.

Mandsford, you make good points about the search feature in PDF software combined with the use of Google Translate, but since plenty of references (citations) are needed for the various data in the article this would be truly a non-trivial task. I'm also not sure how we could comply with the policy on the use of non-English sources too (WP:NONENG), particularly "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." Perhaps a better solution would be for this article to be transferred to the Hungarian version of Wikipedia, where the source material can be used directly? Just a thought, please do comment. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no offense taken. "Esoteric" was perhaps simply not the most fortunate description. Two problems remain: the article's content does not correspond to its title (as duly noted by yourself - rename per Dream Focus below looks like a good idea), and it is effectively still unsourced. This is a big book and those are 100 Mb apiece PDFs, so just saying that it is "somewhere inside" is still not enough. I was hoping that Hungarian-speaking editors would be able to help. GregorB (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trying to argue that the demographics of a large European country are not notable or verifiable is not going to work. I'll agree that the article currently is an excessive listing of statistics and needs major cleanup, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The article just needs to emulate some of the better demographics articles, like Demographics of Switzerland. SnottyWong ^talk 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If someone's statement isn't verifiable, that's probably the main arguments in favor of getting rid of the statement, and it works every time. For all the numbers that got recited here, the article's author never seemed to take note of the "page number". Mandsford 21:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so get rid of the information that is not verifiable and replace it with information that is verifiable, which clearly exists. SnottyWong ^talk 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong, there already does exist an article on the Demographics of Hungary just like the one on the Demographics of Switzerland. The article I proposed for deletion is a complilation of historical census data, which has already been analyzed and incorporated in that form in the article on the Demographics of Hungary. In addition, I believe your proposal to get rid of unverifiable information and replace it with verifiable information cannot be readily accomplished because there appears to be only one accessible source for this information: a Hungarian encyclopedia. Using that as a source would likely be easy in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but would require plenty of translations for the English Wikipedia, and this is going to be difficult per WP:NONENG. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG only requires translations of direct quotations from sources, so is not an issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one has more information than the other one does. And its all based on the 1910 Census, plus is featured in a major printed encyclopedia. Call it the 1910 Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary if you wish. It is quite encyclopedic to list everything, instead of just eliminating valid information for the purpose of a shorter summarized version that makes up a small part of another article. Having year by year census data available for each country, would be quite useful for some who wish to access that information. WP:ALMANAC Dream Focus 23:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Being able to prove any of this would be even more useful. I can't imagine two users more diverse than Snotty Wong and Dream Focus, but they seem to be in agreement on this. No offense intended, both persons stand up for what they believe in. However, I'm amazed at how many people seem to assume the accuracy of the figures in here. This really needs to be userfied if someone is going to attempt a rescue. For anyone who is going to attempt what User:Ocsi should have done when he or she cranked this out, it's going to take awhile. It's not impossible, but downloading even one of the volumes, and even at high speed, takes awhile, after which search can be done for the 1910 language census using various terms. Mandsford 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like something more suitable at Wikisource? There is no discussion about the statistics (nor should there be, probably) so other than a bit of fancy formatting, there isn't any particular encyclopedic content. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (I will just comment on your comment without starting a new comment.) The article starts out: "This article is about the demographic development of the Kingdom of Hungary during a time period between 1715 and 1910." But all it contains is data for 1910, nothing about development.-Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I think the topic is worthy for inclusion, but in it's current form it is just an extensive list of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should rename it, because Demographics of Hungary page does exist (e.g. 1910 Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary)or the matter of article should be inserted into Demographics of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC) It contains well detailed informations about Hungarian counties around 1910. It is worthy.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:42, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vesyolye Rebyata

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

No references, no indication of importance, tagged since 2009 Talktome^(Intelati) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not come up with any matches to a musical group named Vesyolye Rebyata (at least none that are discerable and/or in English). Does not appear to be either notable or verifiable. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article has six book and newspaper sources, including this encyclopedia, and an extensive discography showing that the band has released many albums over 40 years, mostly on the Melodiya label. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of English-language sources showing that this band was part of the Soviet response to the growing popularity of Western pop music in the 1960s: [8][9]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 25 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) 04:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let the Russian editors build it up before tossing it, especially if the only potentially valid sources are in Russian. Bytemeh (talk) 06:08, 30 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) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chia N Mustafa

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

Creating AfD on behalf of 109.127.71.33. Please add your reasoning below. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless the IP adds reasoning for deletion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, in the absence of a deletion rationale. I imagine the concern was notability, but sources added since the AFD began hint at some moderate notability. It is thin, granted, but it's there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete within seven days AGFing here on the IP's part in the discussion, but I'd imagined that this article qualifies for WP:BLPPROD as there are no significant coverage available for this BIO (no mention can be found about the subject in question in the references purported in the article). :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:04, 20 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) 00:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are for his father, and notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to verify notability. In cases like these, I would also be OK with a merge and redirect to Nawshirwan Mistefa. Location (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, noting that the sources are thinner than they appeared at first glance. Switching over from Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 06:42, 24 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) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fray (Internet forum)

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

Non-notable web forum. I have looked, but the reliable, independent sources that would justify this article simply aren't there. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there seems to have been another AfD for this subject here. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slate (magazine). I don't think the forums are independently notable enough to merit a separate article, but the content should be merged into the Slate article where it belongs. Neither the Slate article or the Fray article have size concerns, so a merge shouldn't be a problem.--hkr Laozi speak 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Even a notable website shouldn't have a seperate article for its individual parts. Also, the article is very poor and it's not even made clear whether the subject still exists or not: it mentions that it was shut down in 1999 but also says it was overhauled in 2007. Basically hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 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 keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen

AfDs for this article:

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

From WP:DRV, outcome was to restore, and send to AFD. Procedural nom. No opinion expressed on notability by nominator. Here for a discussion and assessment, from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I cant find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would confer the level of notability we require. Sure, he has some community awards and a few brief mentions in news articles, but he hasn't been the subject of the vast majority of those. I don't think he's quite there yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline does not mandate that the individual be the main focus of sources, only that the sources speak of him directly and in some detail. Past this, some of the sources do indeed have this individual as the main topic being discussed. I believe we can take these, add to them the ones where he is spoken of but not the main focus, and grant that he has his notability, even if only to the many millions in the Toronto metropolitan and Ontario surrounding areas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Toronto Star [10], Toronto Star [11] and Barrie Advance [12] sources are good enough, along with the various CBC News mentions [13] [14]. Since the first three sources are not trivial and do focus on Nguyen and his website, and he has won the Paul Yuzyk award, the entry meets WP:BIO.--hkr Laozi speak 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the non-trivial coverage in the three sources listed by the user above me, the guy appears to meet WP:BIO, specifically the WP:BASIC subsection. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dylan. What little notability there is seems to be entirely local. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is sufficiant to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Being Canada's economic capital and the fifth most populous municipality in North America, Toronto is not exactly some low-population or little-heard-of backwater. Further, Toronto is the heart of Ontario's film and television industry, and this individual has received the attention of his peers and coverage in multiple reliable sources.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/12/26/12269826-sun.html

http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html

http://www.rcinet.ca/english/column/the-link-s-top-stories/multiculturalism-award-winner/

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/01/unsolved-murder-rate-runs-843.html

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/10/mayoral-candidates-debate.html

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/2010/08/06/torontos-six-most-memorable-neighbourhood-naming-smackdowns/

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563486

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1IEqBz.chR0&refer=canada

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=2e9fa45a-99b9-4918-a372-0ec3234e4e9a&k=52736

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228975

http://www.rrj.ca/m4093/

http://www.simcoe.com/article/48650

http://www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/documents/guns-crime-Can-ccjAug09.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/canada/en/news/detail/41780.htm
Wikipedia does not expect coverage to be world-wide, and news coverage to many millions does not equate to being "local" to some few hundreds. Notable to Canada is plenty notable enough for en.Wikipedia. I am convinced through available sources that any concerns with the article are best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fringe

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

Declaration of interest: I am a director (i.e. board member) of another venue at the Edinburgh Fringe.--ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage to establish notability ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Free Fringe has become a well-known part of the Edinburgh Fringe, and a quick GNews archive search for Edinburgh "Free Fringe" shows plenty of coverage. I would be quite happy for all the major venues at the Edinburgh Fringe to have articles, (and even long-running minor venues in a list article). Suggest WP:BFAQ#COMPANY if you think your own venue deserves an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That sounds rather like an argument supporting a merge into Edinburgh Fringe, rather than keeping this one as a separate article. Do you think we really need separate articles for 'the event itself' and 'the group promoting it'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Free Fringe is not the group that promotes the Edinburgh Fringe (that's the Festival Fringe Society), it is one of several organisations that hosts a lot of events within the Fringe. The Edinburgh Fringe is a vast festival and I doubt very much you could put all the encyclopaedic information about every notable venue into one page. It's quite normal for highly notable subjects to have sub-pages covering different areas of the subject - no-one, for instance, suggests merging BBC One into BBC. There are some arguments for a merge (possibly merging all the different free fringes together), but that's something that should go into a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any significant coverage other than the one item already referenced. I think hardly any of the 100+ venues deserve articles, and I don't think that the venues I run meet WP's notability criterion: I was simply declaring an interest in order to be open about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 21 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search on GNews finds a lot of articles referencing the Free Fringe (that's excluding all the non-Edinburgh things called free fringes), but the big ones I found are this article from BBC News about an award given to the founder, this article in the Scotsman covering all the free fringes, a fair amount of attention in this article in The Times, numerous mentions in other national newspapers and many Free Fringe-Specific articles in publications that cover the Edinburgh Fringe. There might be a case for putting all the different free fringes (PBH, Laughing Horse and Forest) into one article, or even merge all the major venue chains into once article, but that's for a merge discussion, not this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material discussed by Chris above seems sufficient to keep the article; the advisability of a merge should be discussed atthe talk p. of the main article, since, as he says, it will apply to more than this one group. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 31 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) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMSDroid

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

The only sources for this article are the site of a closely affiliated project, and a single blog post. I looked but couldn't find anything better. Given the lack of reliable sources, this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obscure product lacking any media coverage. The user's account was created purely to write about this product, so a conflict of interest is suspected.--hkr Laozi speak 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not finding any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 24 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. Courcelles 05:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyker Beach Golf Course

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

Non-notable local golf course Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There seem to be a few sources (such as here and here, and a hint of another here) which may just push it over the notability threshold. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jimmy Pitt's efforts notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Golf courses, like major parks, are significant geographic features and therefore always notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 29 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This golf course is more than 100 years old. It gets tons of mentions [15] and an occasional actual article [16] in the New York Times. Tiger Woods's father learned golf there. It's described as "one of the most played public golf courses in the nation." [17] I don't agree with DGG that all golf courses are notable, but this one certainly seems to be. I'll add some sourcing to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I cleaned up the writing, deleted the namedropping of non-notables, and added sources. --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 6 November 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) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ross Holmes

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

Non-notable ex-actor and businessman; most of the sources are not about him; fails due to ignoring WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

I have just posted on your talk page. I am still editing this article and I hope that writing content that is currently only linked to in the external links, will demonstrate the notability of Mr Holmes

Thanks

Bensomersethow (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable businessman per OrangeMike notability is not inherited. Mo ainm~Talk

Comment. I'm one of two admins who have been discussing this article with Bensomersethow (talk) (the other being Jimfbleak (talk)). I initially became involved after I declined a CSD request. I'm not yet convinced that the article's subject is notable enough for an article: it would seem to me that a stronger case could be made for the Edinburgh International Marketing Festival, which Thomas Ross Holmes founded. However, this festival is part of the Edinburgh Fringe rather than the main Festival, so maybe, maybe not. Thomas Ross Holmes also founded Creativebrief, which "connects buyers and sellers of marketing services". There's no article for Creativebrief, either, and I'm not convinced that they'd necessarily be notable enough for an article. Finally, the article's creator is an employee of the article's subject. I hadn't realised that until just now, but Jimfbleak clearly had. Ben, you do need to be aware of Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy. TFOWR 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Thanks for the further guidance. I mentioned upon my first contact with Jim that I was at creativebrief, and I hope this does not stand in the way of the article remaining published. I have edited the 'entrepreneur' section and hope that this helps assessing the notability of Mr Holmes.

Kind regards

Bensomersethow (talk) 15:26, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and the obvious WP:COI issues here cannot be ignored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 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 merge to The Invisible Detective. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Time (Justin Richards novel)

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

Non-notable book as per WP:BK Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Invisible Detective. There's nothing notable about this book (or the others in the series that have their own articles) and the parent article could easily be expanded to accommodate the plot synopses. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. That plot summary sure reads like it's off the back cover, and is likely a copyvio, so there's nothing to merge. Reviews might be found, so recreation/expansion should be left open. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add a link to Invisible Detective on the disambiguation page Killing Time, then delete the original entry, since it's high dubious that anyone searching for the entry will type out the full "Killing Time (Justin Richards novel)" name.--hkr Laozi speak 05:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article for the series. The book is not independently notable--in only about 200 libraries, a/c worldcat, which is trivial for a children's novel.Personally, I would like to revise our rules for fiction to indicate that the default way of handling series books like this is an article for the series, and anything more requires very strong proof of substantial notability. Our problem is that we talk as if we have only the two exclusive classes notable|nonnotable --actually, we can deal with somewhat finer distinctions by combination articles and inclusion on lists. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 29 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) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderground (newspaper)

http://wunderground.wustl.edu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.68 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable student "satire newspaper." No evidence that this is notable. No independent sources to establish notability. Oh yeah, and having an ISSN number does mean diddly. GrapedApe (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student activity at a single school, not even worth a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation fetish

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

Non-notable concept; could not extend beyond dictionary definition only Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago it was a very thorough article, though it lacked references. Today it's pretty useless, I agree. It doesn't really matter what's decided here, since 98% of the article's content has already been deleted. ^L_Wizard @ 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete virtually no content and what is there is a silly "furry" drawing and a stealth link to a sex site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo transformation

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

Non-notable topic, no sources to support more than a dictionary definition Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Bunch of original research regarding some bizarre fetish. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this fetish exists, but doesn't appear to be the subject of study the way, say, foot fetishism has. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 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. Courcelles 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deyi Secondary School National Cadet Corps (Land)

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

Fails WP:GNG secondary school group with no sources on the article and none that I could find to establish some kind of notability Mo ainm~Talk 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 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, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local branches of larger organizations are generally not notable. That clearly seems to be the case here. If someone wants to retain the information, it could be properly included in Deyi Secondary School. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yes, Eagles, Narthring and Jimmy are right in their arguments - and I might have agreed with them had I voted. But with respect to this AfD, I find no consensus for a delete vote, assuming good faith on the ip vote... Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Simonds

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

Fails WP:ATH, never played professionally, does not meet WP:GNG either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he gets picked up by another team and plays, the article can be recreated, but right now his career is not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like he's definitely cleared the bar on WP:GNG to me, there's a lot of articles that come up just in the "news" link above--granted, some regional and local coverage but some national coverage as well. While he's certainly not getting the "Free pass" that WP:ATHLETE grants, there's enough other sources and coverage here to warrant an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't locate sources that would pass WP:GNG. If some were brought forward I would change my !vote. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets general notabliliy guidelines. He is a two time Patriot League first team receiver,a Sporting News third team FCS All-America, and was selected to the 2010 East-West Shrine Game (which has its own article). Both his senior season total of 14 receiving touchdowns and 28 career touchdowns rank second among Patriot League players.

Moreover, national wire reports of Colgate results generally include his name and statistics. He received a fair amount of attention as a potentially draftable FCS star. These reports increased greatly with his Shrine game selection and workouts preceding the NFL draft. There is a fairly extensive profile of his ability at http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1635212, along with many discussions of his draft status elsewhere. This does not include local or regional reports of his achievements, which are quite prevalent and detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.27.66 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting invited to the East-West Shrine Game (considered second to the Senior Bowl) does not make him notable. CBS Sports has a draft profile on almost every senior in the nation, so this, too, does not make him notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National news wires reporting his statistics do not improve his notability, see number 4 here. Narthring (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 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) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cooper

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG, never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just finding a lot of independent articles about the last three football nominations for deletion. The nationwide coverage looks good enough to me to warrant articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH since he never played professionally. I haven't found any non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability according to the general notability guidelines either. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCertainly notable in my opinion.Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One reference from a Trenton, NJ paper merely includes his name on a list of names of players drafted by the team. The other reference is entirely about someone else. Perhaps the main point of the article, as written, is to tell the story of how he proposed to his wife. It's sweet and all, but not notable, nor is the potential career of this college athlete. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't yet played professionally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 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.