Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 22

< 21 March	23 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuuk football team

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

Non-notable state level team. Another constituent island of micronesia, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yap_football_team Stu.W UK (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that this team has done anything of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Federated States of Micronesia Football Association. While there's insufficient source material to write an article about the team right now, they are a member of a national football association which is a member of FIFA. Pburka (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all they've done is play a few friendlies against other non-notable teams, nothing of note. Giant Snowman 13:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A football team which has done nothing to prove notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Zammit

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

Tagged for notablity in 2010 and its only sources are Zammit's own webpage. Looking at his one book, it is unnotable and self-published. Doesn't appear notable per WP:BIO for author. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the above. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't comport with notability guidelines. Another shameless self-promoter trying to misuse Wikipedia for free publicity.--Hokeman (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourced entirely from his own web site, and no apparent claim to meet the notability guidelines. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of apparent notability. Usual caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Nichols

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

An WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY about a 26 year old GLBT activist who ran for, and lost, a minor political office in Plano, Texas. There are quite a few references, but may of them were written by the subject, and all are local. It's about what one would expect to see for any politician. I believe that he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I raised my concerns ~~with the author~~ in the article and on its talk page one week ago, but received no response. Pburka (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he seems to be an interesting young man, as a losing political candidate, he fails our notability guideline for politicians. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, not for his failed candidacies but for his role as the first director of the Collin County Teen Court and as elected president of the Teen Court Association of Texas. These roles have brought him significant and sustained in-depth media coverage plus awards from notable organizations. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A majority of the coverage appears to be trivial local election coverage (simple poll results, brief candidate blurbs, etc.), which does not convey notability per WP:POLITICIAN or per WP:GNG. The coverage in sources such as the Voice technically consists of only one article about him, as far as I can see... the others are editorials he wrote and very brief blurbs that do not constitute significant coverage. Outside of this, we have nothing but primary sources (from the Teen Court itself) that cannot be used to establish notability... and even these sources are very weak (i.e., a photo of him). No actual significant coverage, and thus does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beach House Restaurant

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

Obvious advertising, with no assertion of notability Anaxial (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references are provided, and a search for in-depth coverage yielded little more than predictable passing mentions in Bradenton and Sarasota, Florida newspapers. Article is written like an advertising brochure, and doesn't seem salvageable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability not credibly asserted. Blatant, unsalvageable spam. LordVetinari (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is truly unsalvagable, blatant spam as already noted. A Google search shows no identifiable sources that meet WP:RS or WP:PSTS. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts News

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

The only reliable sources are about the publisher J. Edward Pawlick not this paper. In fact I didn't find any solid sources and it looks like it was a specialty paper promoting certain conservative views. What remains is a soapbox (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to rail against those darn homosexuals and the dangerously liberal New York Times (because the are not staunch opponents of gay marriage). Seriously though the paper's name sounds official but the rest is shaky at best to promote a point of view against gay marriage. Nothing to suggest this paper is notable. Gamer$unshine (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The tone of this notability challenge (..."What remains is a soapbox (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to rail against those darn homosexuals and the dangerously liberal New York Times...") smacks of being POV-driven. I'm inclined not to lose the information contained in this article over technical matters of inadequate sourcing. Flag for sources, keep, fix. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my tone came off poorly, the point I was sarcastically trying to convey is that this newspaper itself is not notable, the publisher might have been (he died in 2007 I believe). When I looked for sources I found nothing which is a pretty bad sign. If you have some non-primary sources let's see what they say. This has been flagged for sources already and my point is if it can't be reliably sourced then it shouldn't be here. In contrast I had no problems finding plenty of coverage for The Boston Globe, so even if they had not won so many awards there is still lots of coverage. This paper seems to have little or none. G$ Gamer$unshine (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources--a couple are cited in the article and there are more (e.g.[1][2][3]), and even if they are also about the publisher, they do give enough information about this paper to support this article. I gather that this AfD is an outgrowth of the debate about "Fistgate", but even if that article should be deleted (and perhaps it should be) that doesn't mean this article should go too. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those but they confirm that Pawlik himself is notable but his pamphlet was not. two of the three are very minimal mentions and none of them support any claim of notability for Massachusettes News. G-money 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~an as-yet-non-existent~~ J. Edward Pawlick article. He seems to be the more notable topic here. Pburka (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a Pawlick article being created, I am concerned about merging unsourced content that sourcing likely does not exist for. Also we are not responsible for creating some new article so would Delete and allow a Pawlick to be created more accurate? G-money 10:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can put together a decent stub for the man. Pburka (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Arxiloxos especially makes a solid case, with the sources he provides, for the notability of Pawlick. Pawlick is not the subject of this AfD, however. I'm genuinely flabbergasted, for instance, at the assertion that you can handwave so-called "technical matters of inadequate sourcing" in order to save the "information" - for one thing, if the "information" is not verifiable through a reliable, independent, neutral source, what good is it? For another, WP:V is the irreductible, fundamental core content policy of this encyclopedia, and can under no circumstance be handwaved. For a third, this article has been flagged for sources ... for fourteen months now. It has remained unimproved in all that time, and barring multiple reliable sources which describe the subject - not its publisher, but the subject - in "significant detail," it cannot remain. Ravenswing 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge and redirect to Pawlick article. Ravenswing 09:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiastic merge and redirect - (disclosure note: I originally declined the speedy delete nom that led to this AfD). Kudos to Pburka for not just suggesting a way of preserving the pertinent info from the nomitated article, but actually following through in such short order. Any relevant info from the Massachusetts News article can be merged in, leaving a redirect. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unenthusiastic merge and redirect Compare Fistgate's: "In a session about health and sexually transmitted diseases, a student asked a question about fisting and was provided an explanation by an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health."

To this article's:"...a Department of Education and GLSEN sponsored conference at Tufts University for high school students which has become known as "Fistgate" in conservative circles, since part of the conference allegedly involved telling students how to properly "fist" another person."

I in no way endorse merging this article's portrayal of an employee responsible for answering student's questions doing his job as indoctrination of students allowed to run amuck on campus. The material is about as well covered in the Fistgate article as such borderline COATRACK subjects can be. Only concisely summarized, accurate, currently verifiable material, and most importantly, material directly concerning the new subject, should be moved.

For example, again, the article: "The MassNews story on the conference again became national news when President Barack Obama tapped Kevin Jennings to become "Safe School Czar". Jennings was the co-chairman of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth in 2000, and was one of the organizers of the "Fistgate" conference." This skips straight past the heart of the issue, the employee answering the question, to link Obama to one of the organizers of the conference, who is then linked to the controversy about the conference which is linked to the story that is linked to MassNews which is linked to Pawlick. That's too many degrees of separation to be anything other than trivial coverage, in my opinion, even in a newspaper. But it definitely does not belong in the proposed Pawlick article. Anarchangel (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why is a redirect needed at all? I just did another search trying to connect the newspaper to the claims presented and found nothing again, plenty on Pawlick but not for this article. Personally I think there is no good reason to send readers to Pawlick's page who may be looking for something that actually is News in Massachusetts, I just can't see how redirecting people there is a good idea and everything that was mergable was already put in (thanks to Pburka for doing that!). So there is nothing left to merge and this newspaper is not notable. I think other entities called "Massachusetts News" might be but those looking for them are likely to be disappointed to get to the story of an anti-gay crusader. Thoughts? G-money 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What other entities called "Massachusetts News" are you aware of? Pburka (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is that this is a non-notable title of one of his printings. When I search for Massachusetts News I should not pull this up on Google, I should get actual news sites or on Wikipedia, I guess, a list of Massachusetts newspapers - which would not include this one. It would seem to be more harm than good given this is Wikipedia and search terms her are often the tops fro search engines. G-money 01:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1381 voltage trigger

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, does not meet WP:GNG. This is an obscure chip doing an obscure job. This advertising leaflet is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the world's replacement parts catalog. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched in vain for something to merge this into. An article on Voltage controlled trigger, explaining how they work, could be quite interesting. Pburka (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:GNG --Guerillero | My Talk 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. No reliable sources indicate the subject is notable. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Lee

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

Non-notable, lack of availability of sources, and lack of content or possibility for content at current time. Goyston talk, contribs, play 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no coverage in reliable sources; not notable. -- anndelion (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to ark music factory's page 108.8.54.140 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has no real significance other than the connection with Rebecca Black. Any information pertaining to Black and Lee can be added to the Rebecca Black article. Paul 1953 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ARK Music Factory - There may not be enough info about her to have a full article, but she is notable enough that people will look her up on Wikipedia, which I think justifies a redirect. See this page for her page view stats. Thatotherperson (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now that the page has been moved, this page is a better place to look up her page view stats. Otherwise you will only see how many people have been redirected from Alana Lee to Alana Lee Hamilton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatotherperson (talk • contribs) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PRODBLP Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too Soon, do the redirect to ARK Music Factory for now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough. Lack of third party reliable sources. Swimnteach (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Think this easily qualifies for deletion under CSD A7. Question the notability of ARK as well.--Gnowor^T_C 05:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjec to farticle does not meet WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG, given the references presently used in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARK Music Factory as per Thatotherperson. Kaini (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Presence of Enemies

A couple of years ago, we successfully cleaned up the proliferation of articles on individual Dream Theater songs, merging all but a few of them into their parent articles per WP:NSONGS. See, e.g., [4] [5]. In particular, several forks from the album Systematic Chaos were done away with, e.g. [6][7], but the problem has started to return. Home_(Dream_Theater_single) and Forsaken (Dream Theater song) are essentially a recreates of Home_(Dream_Theater_song) and Forsaken_(song), which were redirected per [8][9], and may qualify under WP:SPEEDY G4. Constant Motion (song) is a recreate of Constant Motion, n.b. [10], and obviously qualifies under G4. In the Presence of Enemies is a little different; it escaped the dragnet last time by the sneaky strategy of not yet existing, but I nevertheless submit that it is in just the same boat now as the other Systematic Chaos songs were then: it fails NSONGS. Despite minor differences in posture as these four come to AfD, I propose that they should be given the same treatment: D&R to the parent albums Scenes from a Memory (Home) and Systematic Chaos (the rest). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As much as I love Dream Theater, it's no secret that their individual songs really don't receive much attention from conventional media sources. As such, articles about their individual songs will most likely consist entirely of original research (as some of these already do). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominators, please take more care in future to remove the underlining from the titles of articles copy-pasted from the URL, so as to not give the impression that the actual title of the article is flawed. Anarchangel (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Diannaa. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universalmoney Records

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

Doesn;t make sense RDN1F (don't) (talk) (to) (me) (before) (my) (coffee) (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is very confusing and doesn't make any reasonable claim for notability. Google search yields little as well. I'm going to say Delete the page in its current form, but if sources are provided, notability established and the article written a bit better at least, I have nothing against keeping the page. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question I'd like to add: What sorcery are those talk page templates in the article? I thought I'd make it easier for anyone up for fixing the page by moving them to talk page but I couldn't find the templates in the source. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - db-corp or db-spam. I don't see a plausible claim of notability. There is a prior speedy tag on the article waiting for admin attention, so perhaps this AfD is premature. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US-Mattress

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

Contested prod - No indication of notability, and no reliable sources are added that could establish it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there article has been here for a couple of years, and no independent sources have been added. I searched Google and could not find one example of coverage, other than selling and review sites; the Top 500 retailer site (which may or may not be a quality source as it sells reports on companies) no longer lists it, removing even that tenuous claim. As such, it fails WP:COMPANY. Seaphoto^Talk 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is largely promotional and doesn't make it clear how this company might meet WP:CORP. Not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed deletion request came from a user that keeps trying to vandalise the page. We keep fixing it, and now the vandal submitted the deletion request. We are a business. And the vandal is either a disgruntaled customer or competitor. All of the current notations are accurate, verifiable and up to date.Brightonmiplace (talk) 4:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)— Brightonmiplace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See the article history - the negative comments came from South8wind and later RayBCharles, both of which are blocked from sockpuppeting. Both the AFD and PROD were posted by me - for the reasons stated in the deletion nomination up above. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have a company does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion. See WP:ITEXISTS. Seaphoto^Talk 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Top 500 link has been updated. The Internet Retailer Top 500 list is generated by the e-commerce industry leading media company, Internet Retailer. US-Mattress is one of top 500 retailers in the country. Also, the trademark link regarding 'Comfort Scale' 10 point measuring system has a been updated.This is clearly an important website, as 289,127 people visited in February 2011.Brightonmiplace (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the number of hits on the website doesn't help establish notability here. You might want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as it covers some of the common misconceptions about notability on Wikipedia. Then take a look at WP:CORP on specifics that might help make the case for notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply' Thank you for pointing out the error citing page stats. Reviewing notability requirements, the previously mentioned Internet Retailer magazine's annual ranking is significant. Internet Retailer is the ecommerce industry trade magazine, and citation of a company as an industry leader is notable.Brightonmiplace (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment are there any other sources you can point to here. I and other editors are not finding Internet Retailer to be very compelling as a reliable source (see above). Also US-Mattress is mentioned only twice in this publication and both are simple reprints of press releases, a bit odd for an entry in their top 500, raises questions about the reliability of the publication.--RadioFan (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment worth noting that user Brightonmiplace has disclosed a COI (he/she is an employee of this company) here, kudos to this user for their honesty. I am a bit concerned about the declaration on the article's talk page which appears to indicate editing this article may be a part of this person's job and may indication a sense of ownership here. Hopefully it's just me misunderstanding the wording.--RadioFan (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the coverage concern expressed; there are some articles that will be added to the page.

Donation Sponsorship with the MHS
Sleep Easy Night with the MHS
Buysafe press release addressing US Mattress as the subject.
GR Consulting business case study about US Mattress
Design Changes article in Internet Retailer magazine.
FurnitureCrate.com's SXSW Participation referenced in WXYZ.com. Furniturecrate is a US Mattress company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightonmiplace (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these qualify as reliable sources I'm afraid to say. The first two links are advertisements, the third is a press release, the fourth page is a case study for an ERP system, which is entirely separate from the notability issue of the company, the fifth article returns a 404 not found, and the sixth article doesn't even mention the company.

Please, have a good look at the WP:RS and WP:CORP (section primary criterion) pages, to see what constitutes a reliable source. Trivial mentions, self published information (Press releases and advertising) and small article's from local sources are not considered reliable sources that can be used to established notability. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ferch

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

WP:BLP1E/WP:GNG -- no significant news coverage, sources seem to extend as far a city council minutes, which means that there appears to be a lack of reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this local hero. Which is a pity, and these comments are not intended to be disrespectful to the article subject, our policies are a matter of secondary coverage, not a matter of our personal respect. Were there additional sources, there would still be the matter of our WP:BLP1E policy, but that could be resolved by making this into an article on the event rather than a biography--I just don't see sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability of the WP:EVENT. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also per above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grinder price

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

Non-notable term, apparently confined to a single Internet forum. No coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this is my first attempt at a proper entry... I'm collecting all the source information at the moment, and getting ready to do further formatting on the entry... I'm sure I've messed up here - I thought the page would remain 'offline' until it was ready! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettMRC (talk • contribs) 22 March 2011

Someone can certainly userfy this article (i.e., place it into a "offline" state for you to work on it); however, judging from the content, even if this is done, there is a strong chance that if/when you do move it back into mainspace (i.e., an "online" state) this page will end up right back here, at a deletion discussion. For more information as to why this content is not acceptable, see WP:NEO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a neologism that has not taken root. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources. Search turns up nothing. - Mailer Diablo 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 and G11 - Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Trampolinepartscenter.com

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

This online company appears to fail the corporation notability guidelines. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and G11. Tagged accordingly. Failing that my !vote defaults to regular delete as failing WP:CORP due to lack of reliable source coverage. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring blossom

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

This article is on a specific "signature drink" of a restaurant. However, upon searching Google, I can find nothing on this particular drink--what comes up refers to generic flower cocktails. Thus, this drink appears to fail WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cocktails are only notable when they are discussed in detail in multiple, independent reliable sources. I could find no such coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an advertisement for the bar.Stu.W UK (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted by reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthera

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

Contested prod - No indication of notability, borderline advertising and WP:PRODUCT seems to apply as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Chocked full of trademark symbols and includes matetrial copied verbatim from [11]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Art Therapy Association

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY andWP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account (Summer3212 (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to American Art Therapy Association. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, I found plenty of news sources in the news link above and art therapy is a well known and studied profession, especially for special needs children. -G$ Gamer$unshine (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of notability. While "art therapy" is well known, this group isn't. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think they are the leading authority, following the Books link I see over 5000 entries[12] and many of them seem like they hold the association in high esteem. Including the Journal of Art Therapy. I'll check that link too. G-money 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually the scholar link above might be better to start with[13], over 2000 leads including published papers from their annual conference which is in its 42nd year![14] G-money 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the non-profit's 2008 budget showing annual revenues over a million with over half coming from memberships, that would suggest they are the largest group of their kind.G-money 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Gamer$unshine. Hundreds of news links[15], hundreds of book links[16], tons of material at Google Scholar[17] all testify to the notability of this organization. Montreal Gazette: AATA "has become the body that sets the standard for art therapy in North America".[18] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to art therapy. While I am concerned about the probable COI, this appears to be a major professional association, and the many potential sources attest to its likely notability. If it isn't kept, it should be merged as a new section in the main article. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of notability theres plenty of good sources. --Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rick Astley discography. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Rick Astley album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No coverage I can find, the one external link provided does not include the subject. Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I'm sorry about this confussion around the article. I'm sure I created this article back in 2008 from a list of all of Rick Astley's albums, coming from another list containing all of his releases: it didn't contain a name. The problem I've now is that I cannot find that list on the Internet, it is a reliable source, and at the very least, if I'm not able to fix the sourcing problem, redirect it to Rick Astley discography, the album exists. The fact that it never had a name, is a problem. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Rick Astley discography per Diego Grez above. No external sources means that the article shouldn't exist. LK (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with everyone, Delete & Redirect. ~~This AfD can be speedy closed~~, as almost all of the content in the article was there in the first revision by Grez, ~~who requests deletion, making it eligible for G7.~~ Zakhalesh (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took Diego Grez's comment as "give me the two weeks to find a source, and then delete and redirect it", rather than a G7. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well took - thank you for correcting me. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and weak delete - this source disagrees with the current article. Unless a source is found... -MrFizyx (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been more than one untitled, the article relates to one released by RCA, not to the one you listed. Indeed the problem remains the lack of source. --Muhandes (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the source where I took the information is down... and the one you linked above is that of "Don't Say Goodbye". Diego Grez (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was never able to find the website because it has since been "modernized". Here it is a 2009 snapshot: [19] Perhaps somebody will do the honours to find this record somewhere into the lists? :P Thx. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Silke

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

Can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this video game sound designer to establish notability under the general notability guideline. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable in the gaming scenario (voice scripting, design and acting), a preliminary research got me the two sources needed and also a reference that makes him passes WP:GNG. ^{[1] [2] [3]} With the correct sourcing and a good writing skill this article can be improved. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After a further research I could find that he has worked on several notable video game titles, including Perfect Dark, Perfect Dark (Game Boy Color), Conker's Pocket Tales, Banjo-Tooie, Jet Force Gemini, Mickey's Racing Adventure, Donkey Kong 64, Mickey's Speedway USA, Kameo: Elements of Power, among others, he either contributed by voice acting, or by designing sound effects. This could be included into his article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The one cited article mentions him only trivially. The three Eduemoni cites are all IMDB, which is not a WP:RS, and, which, alone, do not signify notability. The fact that he worked on notable video games doesn't make him notable either, per WP:INHERITED . Ravendrop 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. While there does not appear to be a question that this is a verifiable subject, its notability is questioned, though not rebutted conclusively. There is significant disagreement as to whether the coverage in reliable sources is significant, or whether certain sources are independent of the subject. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Naval Service Officers

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sourced entirely to website and dead link of ANSO newsletter. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this group in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Where did you look? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Selected list of reliable secondary sources and significant coverage about the group: (there are many more)
    - Ailes, Justin L. (2008-04-15). "ANSO Event to Highlight Hispanic American Impact". Navy News Service.
    - Anderson, Arianne (2007-03-23). "ANSO Hosts Symposium". Navy News Service.
    - Burgess, Tom (1987-02-22). "Navy hunting for Hispanics to fill its ranks". The San Diego Union. p. A1.
    - Castaneda, Raul (March–April 1994). "ANSO aids Navy with Hispanic recruiting". Hispanic Times Magazine. 15 (2). Hispanic Times Enterprises: 38. ISSN 0892-1369.
    - "Former Navy Secretary Charters New ANSO Chapter". Hispanic Times Magazine. 15 (4). Hispanic Times Enterprises: 32. September 1994. ISSN 0892-1369.
    - "An influential Hispanic American in the military". Hispanic Times Magazine. 18 (1). Hispanic Times Enterprises: 38–39. December 1996. ISSN 0892-1369.
    - Crawley, James W. (2002-04-19). "Group seeks more Latinos in the Navy's officer corps". The San Diego Union. p. B2.
    - Dietrich, Robert (1985-09-20). "Naval officers help Hispanic youths beat `barrio syndrome'". The Tribune. p. B12.
    - Milite, George A. (2004). "Hidalgo, Edward: 1912-1995: U.S. Secretary of the Navy". In Ashyia N. Henderso; Ralph G. Zerbonia (eds.). Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 4. Gale. pp. 109–111. ISBN 0787671517.
    - Nelson, Barry J. (1989). "Hispanic Officers". Hispanic Times Magazine. 10. Hispanic Times Enterprise: 84-85. ISSN 0892-1369.
    - Reese, David (2010-06-09). "Naval Officer Takes Pride in Mentoring Hispanics for Career Opportunities". Navy News Service.
    - Stegherr, Laura K. (2010-07-30). "Navy Warfare Commanders Talk Diversity, Mentoring". Navy News Service.
Keep - A quick Google search reveals that multiple military- and Hispanic-related publication regularly reference ANSO and its activities and accomplishments (I have added several references to the article). After my edits today, the article is no longer single-sourced nor depends on an ANSO-published source. BTW, I hope it's totally coincidental that this article about an organization of which Tony Santiago is a member and an officer is nominated for deletion at the same time that the biographical article of him is equally nominated for deletion. Pr4ever (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sourcing you've added is either non-independent, or passing mentions:
  - [20], and [21] are websites for chapters of the ANSO which are hardly independent
  - [22] is about an article about a coast guard person which mentions ANSIO a couple of times. That's not significant coverage.
  - [23] is a conferene announcement and is essetnially a press release. It does not represent coverage.
  - [24] are some photos and isn't coverage

--Whpq (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pr4ever: No, it's not entirely coincidental, because I became aware of this article while attempting to salvage Tony Santiago, an article about the Wikipedia administrator who is listed in this article as historian of this organization. That article mentioned prominently his association with ANSO. The article has since been deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Recent edits have not addressed this article's issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable service organization and professional society that represents Hispanics in the military. Significant data point for Hispanic and Latino American military history, as Edward Hidalgo helped to form this group and was responsible for dramatically increasing the number of Hispanics in the U.S. Navy in only 10 years. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the citations in the article, one is reliable (the Military Times), of which the ANSO is mentioned in one sentence. Not significant coverage. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were four reliable sources in the article when you added that comment. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually there is one reliable, independent source. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there continues to be four. The sources in the further reading section are independent of the subject and reliable. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really. I can't find anything on the Hispanic Times magazine, leading me to wonder how big it is (and therefore its reliabilty), and a biography of a SecNav isn't significant coverage. Yes, the newspaper article is reliable, but newspapers don't exactly have high standards for stories... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again with this nonsense? You once again posted a comment without doing the slightest bit of research. Google books clearly shows that it is or was a notable magazine with more than 25 volumes. The newspapers are all reliable and the biography demonstrates the notability of the organization. There are many more additional sources that are not in use, and not all of them are easy to find on Google. This is a notable service organization recognized by the U.S. government and her military. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced with multiple reliable sources. While it would be ideal not to carry dead links, it's arguable that the dead link was not live and valid at the time of inclusion. WP:AGF applies here, or just do a GoBack. With Hispanic population growth being the hit news 2 decades in a row, it's difficult to see how the subject of the article is not notable. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

The dead link goes to an announcement of appointment of a historian for the organization. So it is tangential. That person is a Wikipedia editor who is aware of this article and has edited it. In light of the close association of the ANSO historian with Wikipedia (he is an administrator), it seems that the best information that is available for this article is already in it, and that it is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current state of consisting largely of a list of names. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is demonstrably false given the information in the further reading section that has not yet been added to the article. This was already pointed out to you previously, and you ackowledged it (but you removed the discussion[25]) so your comment above is somewhat unbelievable (and tendentious) to me. How can you acknowledge and deny something at the same time? To recap, we have additional content in three reliable sources located in the further reading section that has not yet been added. This is very easy to understand, so I do not understand the basis of your comment except that it must only be justified by "I don't like it". Sadly for your argument, that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was removed to the talk page, with your agreement, because it was largely off-topic (regarding the COI tag on the article). If this article is brimming with reliable sources, why not stop arguing about it and attacking people who don't agree with you and simply add the information supposedly contained in those sources to the article, rather than simply listing them as "further reading"? Why not share all that information with Wikipedia readers and not just here, to score points in an AfD? More to the point, why hasn't the historian of this organization, a Wikipedia administrator who has edited this article, made any effort to build up this article? He built up the section about himself [26] in December 2009, but that was it. It has been over a year since then. If the historian of an organization can't build up this article beyond it's current state, there's no reason to believe it will ever be done. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! I've addressed your poor argument and I have attacked nobody. Now, I've addressed your contradictory statements. Previously, you acknowledged the absence of material and said that the material in the further reading section that has not yet been added "should be in the article"[27] Yet you now say and maintain that "the best information that is available for this article is already in it, and that it is unlikely to be expanded". Completely contradictory, absurd, and ridiculous. Your argument is based on your campaign against Tony Santiago, not on this article. "You don't like it" is what it amounts to, and that is not a valid argument for deletion. The further reading section demonstrates non-trivial coverage by third parties, and you've already acknowledged it. You can't backpedal now and say it doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is ridiculous. You added some citations to a "further reading" section but didn't add anything from that "further reading" to the article. I asked you to do so, and you became incredibly hostile. So yes, I have concluded that the best information available re ANSO is already in the article because 1) This article has been in existence for sixteen months and nobody, including the historian of this organization, have been able to expand it and 2) You claim to have possession of oodles of additional sourcing that escaped everybody else, and you won't add it. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the absurdity. Each time you respond you move the goalposts and make additional fantastic claims. Sources have been added to the article for you to expand. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have access to the contents of these sources that you've described and... oh, wait a moment, do you? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever responded to a single comment without moving the goalposts or making false assumptions or accusations? Have you? Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of non-trivial coverage by third part sources shows that this is hardly a notable organization. The article exists because one of the members is a Wikipedian. If, in the future, the organization attains some relevance, I would not object the recreation of the article. --Damiens.rf 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False. The organization is historically responsible for increasing the presence of Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. military and is recognized as such by reliable sources. Its notability is not in question by anyone. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's according to who? And why isn't that in the article? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you are admitting that you haven't looked at the sources in the article nor have you done any research. Great way to run an AfD. Par for the course and exactly what I expect from Wikipedia. Delete away... Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right. They're not online. And if you haven't looked at them either, which is obvious, it's pretty irresponsible to do what you've been doing - which is describing articles you haven't seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - More absurdity and ridiculousness. Clearly, you have not done the research. I found the biography article on Google in less than 2 seconds.[28] I haven't done a single thing "irresponsible" here or anywhere else for that matter. Your repeated false statements and accusations are certainly distracting people from the fact that you don't have a valid argument for deletion. Keep it up. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I indicated below, the link you provided above is some kind of biography website, and it appears to not be a verifiable or reliable source, and neither is it a nontrivial mention. But we'll let the closing administrator decide. That alone is not sufficient to sufficiently source the article per WP:ORG, even if that source met Wiki standards. What's needed are multiple nontrivial sourcing that is independent of ANSO. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again with the false claims. As I indicated below, the link I provided is an online version of the published entry from Milite, George A. (2004). ""Hidalgo, Edward: 1912-1995: U.S. Secretary of the Navy"". In Ashyia N. Henderso; Ralph G. Zerbonia (eds.). Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 4. Gale. pp. 109–111. ISBN 0787671517. It was only offered to you because you made the absurd claim based on bad faith that I had not seen the content nor was it verifiable. Each and every time I respond to your point, you move the goalposts and make additional false claims. It's getting tiring. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, I have looked at the sources to the article that are footnoted, and they are all associated with the organization and thus are not sufficient to establish notability. Those non-independent sources are the only ones that have been utilized in this article since it was created in November 2009 (apart from a "reading list" you provided of articles you apparently haven't seen yourself). I am amazed at the energy that has gone into defending this article by editors who haven't lifted a finger to improve it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the contrary, the complete opposite of what you claim appears to be true. I, in fact, have done the research. What have you done here except for nominate articles for deletion solely because you don't like it? Please feel free to respond with more distracting false assumptions, accusations, and anything else you can do to avoid the burden of proof. All of the sources are not associated with the organization, as myself and others have repeatedly informed you. For some reason, you don't seem capable of doing the necessary research. Instead, all we get are false accusations and false assumptions of bad faith about other editors. Amazing! You nominated this article for deletion solely because you DON'T LIKE IT because Tony Santiago once edited it several years ago. You should not even be allowed on AfD. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I look forward to seeing your research reflected in the article. The link you provided above is some kind of biography website, and it appears to not be a verifiable or reliable source, and neither is it a nontrivial mention. But we'll let the closing administrator decide. As for Tony Santiago, your argument is really with the closing administrator who deleted it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again with this nonsense? The link I provided is an online version of the published entry from Milite, George A. (2004). ""Hidalgo, Edward: 1912-1995: U.S. Secretary of the Navy"". In Ashyia N. Henderso; Ralph G. Zerbonia (eds.). Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 4. Gale. pp. 109–111. ISBN 0787671517. It is not a "biography website" and it has already been verified as a reliable source. You seem to either not understand what has been said or what is being said or are just plain confused. There are additional secondary sources in the further reading section supporting the notability of ANSO. To quote the U.S. Navy: "The organization contributes significantly to strengthening overall diversity efforts and includes membership by active duty, reserve, and retired officers and enlisted, as well as civilian employees of the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine...ANSO has been a partner in the Navy’s efforts to increase diversity at all ranks..."Organizations like ANSO help promote diversity and positive human relations in the Navy, which strengthens the Navy as a whole. It also recognizes people who are helping to promote cultural awareness, which builds morale..."[29] Commands are encouraged to support the Association of Naval Services Officers (ANSO), which recently completed 25 years of service to the Navy and its Hispanic community of officers, enlisted and civilians."[30] Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        [31] is a routine announcement of a "professional development and training consortium," and I don't see it as the significant coverage required by WP:ORG. The biography website, even if an RS, is a passing mention in a biography of the secretary of the navy. You can scream and holler and accuse, but that won't make the subject of this article notable. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is the opinion of the U.S. Navy (Lt. Stephanie Miller, Diversity Directorate, Chief of Naval Personnel) as published in the Navy News Service, not a professional development and training consortium. I'm getting the distinct sense that you don't understand how to recognize a reliable source. The notability of the organization is supported by the secondary source news coverage in the further reading section and in the footnotes. The significance and importance of this organization in the history of Hispanic-U.S. military relations is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a reliable source, but what I question is the depth of coverage. I'm sure this is a fine organization, but just not getting the amount of coverage required for a separate article. By the way, to address a point you raised earlier: no, I don't like this article. It is a list of officers, and not much else. If this is as significant an organization as is claimed, it deserves a better article. This is an awful article, which I think is reflected in the lack of sufficient sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It has more coverage, particularly in U.S. government documents related to the military. Right now, we have an assertion of historical importance of this 30 year old organization in a published book (Contemporary Hispanic Biography), and three news sources (Hispanic Times Magazine, The San Diego Union, Navy News Service) which is enough for a small article on the subject. A temporary merge and redirect to Hispanics in the United States Navy is also acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that would be a good solution. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is one alternative, but it is messy because the organization represents not just the Navy but the Marine Corps, Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine. So it may not be accurate. I think there is enough notability to let the article stand where it is and expand. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It can be referenced in other relevant articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it can stay here and expand. I've just added another reference.[32] Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage, to the extent it exists, is about individual people who happen to be members. Not the organization. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Of the 12 sources in the article, more than six are about and focused on the group. There are far more available that have not yet been added. Furthermore, the rest of the sources not only cover individual members, but assert the significance and importance of the organization in the source itself. Notability has been established and is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Asian Americans. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian American astronauts

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

This list is not notable per WP:LISTN, because there are apparently no reliable sources which consider Asian American astronauts as a group or set. This could be considered a sublist of List of Asian Americans, which isn't a particularly big list. Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Asian Americans. Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Asian Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Asian Americans; as I said before, I really hate these lists which split up people with equally impressive achievements based purely on race which, as far as I'm concerned, is an archaic and frankly offensive way of doing things. Colds7ream (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your world, Sunita Williams and Dan Tani belong to the same "race"? Really? RandomCritic (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the article title they both come under some pseudo-umbrella of 'Asian American', so the article creator certainly seems to have thought so... Colds7ream (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your assumption, but one entirely unsupported by the article itself, which defines "Asian American" in terms of geography (country of birth or ancestry). There's nothing in the article about race at all. If your assumptions about the article are wrong, then logically your conclusions may be wrong as well.RandomCritic (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, "in my world" I don't particularly think there are 'Asian Americans' or 'African Americans' or whatever, just 'Americans' or, preferably, 'people'. Colds7ream (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and utopian, but hardly relevant to the real world.RandomCritic (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did no-one tell you? This isn't the real world, this is Wikipedia. Colds7ream (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I please remind fellow editors of WP:CIVIL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussion at Wikipedia lately regarding what to do with these kinds of lists in general, and whether grouping people on ethnicity, nationality, and / or citizenship is something we should be doing, when there are reliable sources that have similar lists (like List of Muslim astronauts, or List of Jewish astronauts). This particular AfD avoids this can-of-words, because it is different for two reasons: it's not backed up by reliable sources, and it could naturally merge into a bigger list. Mlm42 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either deletion or a merge, and it seems a consensus is forming around the merge. Rationale: the list has no particular notability and appears to be merely a racial/ethnic categorization that either is, or borders on, original research. N2e (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and No Redirect Completely agree with Colds7ream. It is so archaic, there should be no redirect. Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the opinion of whether the division of individuals based on their ethnicity is archaic or not, a redirect should take place in order for articles with a link to this article will be redirected to where the content has been merged to. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While some might think it should be irrelevant whether there are "Asian-American astronauts", I suspect that Ellison Onizuka would disagree, at least according to his mother (quoted in TIME after his death):

"After last week's tragedy, his 72-year-old mother Matsue Onizuka wistfully recalled her son's dream. "Ellison always had it in his mind to become an astronaut but was too embarrassed to tell anyone," she said. "When he was growing up, there were no Asian astronauts, no black astronauts, just white ones. His dream seemed too big." [33]

Or ask Daniel Tani, to whom Onizuka was a "role model".[34] Or for that matter ask NASA, which thinks ethnic diversity (including Asian-Americans as a relevant component) is a relevant goal of the space program, per this 2006 USA Today article reporting that "This composition of Discovery's crew illustrates how far NASA has come in building an astronaut corps that reflects America. . . . Today, 13% of America's 136 astronauts are African-American, Asian-American or Latino."[35] There's plenty more where this comes from.[36] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not buying your argument or sources. Your USA Today source does not say anything about what "NASA thinks". While it is true that sometimes, some people (such as Daniel Tani) have noted that specific astronauts are "Asian-American", there does not appear to be any source that actually attempts to list them. In particular, WP:LISTN requires that the group of "Asian-American astronauts" has received "significant coverage in reliable sources." It is more accurate to say that this particular group has received almost no coverage in reliable sources (try searching Google for "Asian-American astronauts"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlm42 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it with no strong feelings about merging, redirecting, etc. I appreciate that a couple of individuals think it's wonderful that the space corps is diverse (okay, and I do too), but that does not mean that it's worth an article. If someone really needs the list, they can use WP:CatScan. Ma^t_chups 02:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbooth

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

Unreferenced advertisement for a non-notable online business. Contested proposed deletion (old, not mine). Google News finds only PR sources. "References" are talking about its business model generally rather than about the named business specifically. Article says that The network was founded by John Lemp in September 2002 who is also the current acting CEO of IntegraClick, Inc. and the originating user was User:Johnintegraclick, suggesting conflict of interest. Hardly any of the text is about the business; most of it is about how its business model will help you make money fast on the Internet:

Performance based advertising also known as CPA advertising has become increasingly popular throughout the past year as major online players... have entered the space ....

The popularity of such networks is due to the increased focus on the actual worth of each user and the ability of CPA to combat both click and impression fraud

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete- no coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases abound, including rehashed press releases, but no substantial independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content in the article fails to state a claim which indicates notability and I failed to find a source providing more information in a Google search. Blue Rasberry (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page is currently undergoing edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.129.210 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Website Magazine and Technorati are notable website publications independent from the business which are included in the article. Duelfx (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon research for the business, I have found independent coverage coming from Wall Street Journal and Tampa Bay Business Journal as well as other reliable sources with local news coverage. Business is a member of the Direct Marketing Association and the Performance Marketing Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.58.160.55 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of references have been added. Looking at the version as of this moment, there are 15 references:
1. Website magazine just ranks a bunch of companies with no commentary about the company. Not significant coverage.
- 1. Keep - this was also included in the print magazine and was a worldwide impartial #1 traffic rank in the affiliate marketing field, a field with players such as Google and Yahoo in it and that news and noteworthiness of a company is considered insignificant? We should delist Google as well then.
1. Inc. is just providing a company profile from its list of top whatever companies. Not significant coverage.
- 1. Keep - coverage was ran in the August 2009 Inc magazine article featuring this company. Also Inc._(magazine)#Inc._500_and_Inc._5000 fastest growing companies list is the equivalent of the Fortune 500 list - this is extremely significant news..
1. Link is dead for me. The headline is about Google.
2. Technorati is blog aggregator and does not represent a reliable source.
- 1. Keep - this article is not a blog article but instead an article written by the editorial news staff. Are we simply not including online news organizations as credible, because that logic would de-credibilize Wikipedia which I know and love.
1. Adotas article is just a passing mention. Not significant coverage.
2. WSJ is using Clickbooth as an example for the article. Coverage is more than a passing mention but still not very substantial.
- 1. Keep - Wall Street Journal major worldwide coverage that specifies a company to model is not considered significant in your eyes? Nothing would be left in Wikipedia?
1. This is the same reference as #1 which is not significant.
2. This is just a big list with no actual coverage about the company.
3. This is the same reference as #2 and is not significant
4. Here is a link the the article online. It is an article written by a Clickbooth employee. As such, it is not an independent source.
5. Here is a link to the article online. I can find no mention of Clickbooth. In any event, it's a mish mash of minor items so any appearance in such a list does not represent significant coverage.
6. The Up and Comers article is about a Clickbooth employee, and not about Clickbooth
7. This Florida Technology Journal article is actually about Clickbooth, and represents a reliable source covering the company.
8. Another list of something article with no significant coverage.
9. A minor mention going over the state of the regional economy. Not significant coverage.
- So after 15 references, we have one article that represents significant coverage in a local business journal. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I have to disagree. To be listed in those references give them notability. These are third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 15 references where all have credibility and only include information that has been backed by thorough research and fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk)
- comment - Aside from one, none of them represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contrary to above, news on Clickbooth was found by doing a Google Search. Substantial coverage in Adotas article linked here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.95.46.120 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: keep votes are suss here. don't have time to evaluate merits at the moment.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this articles needs a few changes to make it a bit neutral other than that company has a alexa rank of 2,108. I did a few checks on the reference links and it seems to be most of them are reliable.I feel this deserves to stay on wiki.--Criketfan —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You think regular editors don't realize votes like this are poo-poo?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OK, i looked hard for sources, this is a nice little growing internet ad-pushing company located somewhere in Florida, United States, it is not notable. The keep vote are all suspicious from non-regular editors.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was originally against it but the recently added references make this a no brainer. According to the Wikipedia guide for notability Wikipedia:CORP - A source must be recognized by an independent source by... "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". This company has been recognized internationally, nationally, and regionally with very depth centric, independent articles in the Wall Street Journal (International), Fox News (regional), ABC News (regional), Tampa Bay Business Journal (regional), Gulf Coast Business Review (regional), Sarasota Herald Tribune (Local - X), Technorati (national staff writer), Inc Magazine (national), And others on that list. The other criteria before deletion is to speak to an industry source prior to deletion to find out if the company is noteworthy. I noticed The many National Industry specific rankings and articles for Affiliate Marketing so if they were our source that would be a positive however I'd like us to have an Affiliate Marketing admin weigh in?

The purpose of these deletions is to remove companies of nothing notable from utilizing wikipedia to spam search engines and resulting in zero additional information that can be shared among the community. The purpose of saving an article is because it reports on something of note that someone else will be able to learn or gain new credible knowledge from. I feel this easily weighs more towards the second statement - I found a negative article and added it as well to ensure the impartialness of the article. --User:Rogerwabbit —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuki Do

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

This is an unsourced article that gives no reason why its subject is a notable martial art. I found no independent sources to support notability. Article was PRODed in June and recently restored with no changes made.Astudent0 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no assertion of, or support for, notability. Janggeom (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reason why this art is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows this art passes WP:MANOTE and I also failed to find coverage by reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSP Partners

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

I'm filing this on behalf of User:Coresim, who has been having trouble with the technical aspects of the AfD process - this does not imply any endorsement by me. The reason given is "This company was purchased and no longer exists in this form. The wiki should be deleted." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Another tech consulting business, this one apparently provides research and education to solution providers in the market for Managed Services. 200+ GNews hits, but everything on the first four pages is a routine announcement or something internal, since they generate reports and issue press releases about them. This is also unambiguous advertising pretty much head to toe:

MSP Partners was created to give solution providers and established MSPs another access point to even more managed services resources from the IT industry
Providing industry best practices for successful managed services featuring vendors’ products and services.
Our new Master membership level demonstrates the vendor community’s ongoing commitment to help solution providers grow and prosper in their business transformation to managed services.

It goes on, and not even Hercules would be enough to clean out this stable. This would be a clear speedy delete but for the fact that it's already been speedily deleted once. -400 notability point penalty for "solution provider" (-25 * 16), -25 for "best practices", and -100 for "moving their business to the next level." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Heusser

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

Under supported biography of a retired chemist and civil servant, written by a family member. I cannot find sufficient source material either to establish that the subject meets the general notability guideline or to mount a rewrite. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and the lack of sources means the problem is not remediable. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... So I added sources. If a federal executive who testified before congress (including a link to the congressional record) regarding the reasons for entering the first gulf war isn't good enough for you, I dunno what to say. Due to the nature of his role, he obviously did not have a high profile (deputy director, office of classification, security affairs, US Department of Energy) but a trivial google search should indicate this information is factual, and I've sourced it as much as I could. Mheusser (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheusser (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you are a person with a close personal connection to the subject of the article, I would ask that avoid participating in this deletion discussion and restrict your editing of the article within the limitations set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest.

In addition, the references you added constitute passing mentions only and do not amount to "significant coverage" -- Rrburke (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI advises those with a conflict of interest to "avoid OR exercise great caution" [emphasis is mine] when participating in Afd discussions. Mheusser has made his conflict of interest known and is applying a good faith effort to abide by Wikipedia rules, so I do not object to him contributing to this Afd discussion if he has information to offer that might help us. Location (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop participating in the discussion, and only point out that since this discussion started, I have been adding sources only, something specifically allowed under COI guidelines. Mheusser (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And you're encouraged continue doing so in order to help demonstrate the subject's notability and reduce the chances that the article will be deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to better understand what criteria are used to evaluate notability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to see what kinds of sources are preferred. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are sufficient to show notability , especially [37]--I recognize it is not independent and prepared by his organization, but I think it is none the less reliable as a government agency. In addition there are about 20 Google news references. at [38] . DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20? I count zero. 160.39.213.200 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, DGG's link didn't work for me either. Try [39]. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, the link was fine. But none of the articles seem to be actual references about this guy, merely quoting him. 160.39.213.200 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have several problems with this article. The first is notability. He appears to have been a lifelong, mid-level bureaucrat in the federal government, never holding any position that provides AUTOMATIC notability. And he does not appear to have met the WP:GNG requirement for general notability, by receiving significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. (Not every bureaucrat is notable, even if they testify before congress, and even if their colleagues say nice things about them when they retire. They may do good and important work, but if that work does not get REPORTED by independent reliable sources, it does not create notability under Wikipedia's standards.) Moreover, the sources provided do not support the claims in the article. I could find no verification that he was ever "Director, Division of Nuclear Materials", the highest-level position claimed for him. The source cited for that claim, reference 10, refers to him as the "former Director of the Office of Declassification" (a claim the article does not make; it refers to him as the Deputy Director of said office), and it says nothing about being the Director of the Division of Nuclear Materials. All in all, a person who does not cross the notability threshold, and an article whose sources do not confirm the claims made. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reference 1 refers to him as the "retired Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear and National Security Information," again a title which is not attributed to him in the article. Was that what the author meant by calling him "Director, Division of Nuclear Materials"? I would encourage the article's author, MHeusser, to try to clarify and source what positions he actually held. (And yes, you are allowed to do that!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews reveals articles that quote him but there is hardly anything about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mandy Smith#Singles/EP's. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandy EP

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

No coverage, doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUMS Muhandes (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandy Smith#Singles/EP's. There is no coverage of this EP released only in Hong Kong. The information in this article provides no additional information than what is already at that section of the discography so no merge is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable even if it exists. Completely worthless article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YinYang Bipolar Relativity

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

Author is promoting a non notable book, no third party references and clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had tagged the article and contacted the author in hopes that they might address the situation, but based on the responses I've received, I don't think there's any improvement to be had. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant (or any!) coverage of this publication in reliably-published third-party sources. It does not appear to be a notable publication according to WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science unless shown otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Have you read the book? If not, what do you base this judgement on? It is needlessly insulting. See also AFD courtesy problem, referred to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. --Lambiam 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if the book becomes notable – now is too early to tell whether that is likely to happen. --Lambiam 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This is a classic example of why we discourage conflict of interest editing; in this case from a family member. It is possible that this work might become notable and in the natural course of things find it's way onto Wikipedia, but instead we are going through the AfD process for it now. Seaphoto^Talk 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==========

Hi All,

I am the author of the book in question. The person who created the page is related to me. He asked me to explain the matter because he is not in such demanding capacity. It is of course perfectly Ok to delete the page especially if it had violated the rules of Wikipedia. In that case, both the contributor and myself are new here, please accept our apology (Sorry. I still don't know how to sign my name after the message). If it is OK for me to give any explanation, please note the following:

(1) There is valid reference (2nd source) on the page with publisher and ISBN numbers (publisher link is removed).

(2) For notability, the book is based on mostly referreed journal and conference papers some of which have been cited by distinguished professors at UC-Berkeley, U of Michigan, France, … etc. The book has just been published this month, there is already at least one journal citation to it:

Reference Journal: Appl. Comput. Math., V.10 0-34 By author ： Professor in Belgium Journal Link: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=578&q=Kerry%EF%BC%8C+Belgium%EF%BC%8C+YinYang+bipolar+relativity&btnG=Google+Search

(3) The word "YinYang" or (YY) has appeared in Science, Nature, Cell and other top journals many times in last two decades. One IEEE fellow has been awarded for the work on YinYang harmony learning (Scholarpedia). YinYang Bipolar Relativity has survived for more than 5000 years without a formal logical foundation (I know a Nobel Laureate used a YinYang logo for his book cover). My book presents a systematic formal logical foundation based on published journal and conference papers (some part is cited by authority in Scholarpedia). That meets the standard of (2nd and 3rd souces).

(4) The concept of YinYang is in the center of quantum mechanics and binary numbers used by Leibniz (Co-founder of calculus with Newton) and Niels Bohr (father figure of quantum mechanics). There are similar pages in Wikipedia. Here is an example: "Quantum Philosophy is a book by the physicist xxxxx, in which he aims to show the non-specialist reader how modern developments in quantum mechanics allow the recovery of our common sense view of the world. ..."

(5) Both the contributor and myself, as newbies, hope to learn more about Wikipedia. If anyone would help improving the page or explain why it should be deleted we would be very grateful. It only has a couple dozen lines, hope someone can point out what is wrong.

(6)Some reader might deem YinYang as a Chinese thing. That is not true anymore. It is not Beijing University but Harvard Medical School where a ubiquitous genetic agent was discovered and named Yin Yang 1 (Wikipedia: YY1) which has been widely referenced by articles in top journals including but not limited to Nature, Science, and Cell. It is not Tsinghua University but MIT campus where a YinYang Pavilion created by American Artist Dan Graham is housed. It was not a Chinese politician but legendary German mathematician Leibniz who invented the modern binary numeral system and attributed his invention to YinYang hexagrams. It was not a founding father of China but a founding father of quantum mechanics − legendary Danish Physicist Niels Bohr − who first brought YinYang into quantum theory for his complementarity principle regarding particle-wave duality.

Author of the Book in question— Author of the Book in question (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The problem with the article is not with the content, but with the topic. In general, we only accept articles on a topic if is "notable", which is Wikipedia jargon for: the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See our General notability guideline. How this can be interpreted for books is worked out in some detail here, although this mostly applies to non-academic books. I hope this clarifies the issue. --Lambiam 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzjz243 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:OR and no proven notability from tertiary sources. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Furthermore, the nominator removed the AfD template from the article. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships

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

Contains some crystal ball as well on wikipedia never has "insert country" at a world aquatic championship ever been created. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement is very weak. Just because its never been created before, doesn't mean that should stop us from making the article. Look at the World Championships in Athletics, specifically the 2009 World Championships in Athletics. They have "insert country" for every single country. Their competition is just as important as the World Aquatics Championships. Why shouldn't the World Aquatics Championships have "insert country" if that competition does? At the moment, currently the United States has an article but I believe its creation will inspire more creation. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been done to other sports festivals like Philipmj24 mentioned, needs some work for sure but when infos are coming it will be good. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator removed the AfD template [40] last week... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Suggest that an admin boldly move this article to the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACCPAC

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

Article contains only unreliable sources and is written like an advertisement. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite ACCPAC was a very popular backoffice accounting package, most widely known as the version by Computer Associates, CA ACCPAC. [41] 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references currently in the article aren't the sort of thing that would make this a notable product. But if this software has been in continuous use since the CP/M era, it might have the kind of longevity that would make this significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The historic names of the software might be better candidates than the current name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The dreadfulness of the article and the references can be fixed. ACCPAC is/was a very popular accounting package for small to medium sized businesses. Examples of independent sources: [42], [43], [44], [45]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da Grin

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

No references and a bit of vandalisim Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep I've found a number of references which I've added to the article. It appears that he, or his album C.E.O. won the Hip hop World Award 2010 for best rap album, so I guess either he or the album is notable. I've removed the bit of vandalisim. Edgepedia (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's talk [46] of a film being made of his life. Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it's been made and is scheduled for release. [47] Edgepedia (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with a note on the film. My opinion is keep as there are a number of sources out there, he won an international award and there's a film been made of his life. Edgepedia (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Hip hop has been notified of this discussion. Edgepedia (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. And good work by User:Edgepedia saving this article from the systemic bias that sees so many notable world music subject's articles get wrongly deleted. -- œ ^™ 09:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A quick google search shows that this species does indeed exist. Even if this turns out to be an elaborate hoax then that fact would also be notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Australian sawshark

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

Reason Kuma123 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) This species does not exist. It was on a list of shark species by mistake.[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe any vertebrate species is notable enough to deserve an article. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Mehrmand

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

The article was Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. A lack of reliable sources keeps this article from demonstrating the notability of its subject, a graduate art student. The article seems to be sourced, but many of these sources are links to either press releases promoting an event or direct links to art galleries promoting the subject of the article rather than NPOV reliable sources that confirm the notability of the subject. The article does list under a review section articles in which the subject is mentioned. However they are mostly short comments about an upcoming event rather than a review of an upcoming work, and do not go beyond run of the mill coverage of amy local event. This coverage fails to establish notability per WP:GNG XinJeisan (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google news search turns up 5 articles on the subject. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=elle+mehrmand&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1

While Mehrmand may be a graduate student artist, she is currently exhibiting internationally in major art exhibitions. These are not "local coverage" shows, but internationally recognized events, like the California Biennial. I am a STRONG KEEP on this article. To delete her would only demonstrate a lack of understanding about contemporary art or a lack of interest in female artists. How could the Wired Magazine article on her be "local coverage"? http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/11/california-biennial/?pid=1906&viewall=true

And the Art21 article reviews her work extensively. Art 21 is about as reputable an art source as you can get. Aside from her mention in the recent issue of Artforum, with a collective she is in, the bang lab, here: http://artforum.com/museums/page_id=2&item_id=6295 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.61.44 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just clicking the Google Scholar link here turns up a new publication in 2011 that Mehrmand is a co-author for: "Productive confusions: learning from simulations of pandemic virus outbreaks in Second Life (Proceedings Paper)" http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Elle+Mehrmand%22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.20.125 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a photo and more links to recent performances at UCLA and UAG, to respond to initial request for more "reliable sources", as well as an extended review of the UCLA performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.20.125 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reliable source has to come from a independent third party. Since that article was published by the Center for the Study of Women at UCLA, which the article itself states was the cosponsor of the event, it doesn't establish the notability of the event nor the artists involved -- in fact it isn't even a review but more a summary of the event. WP:IRS is a good place to start to learn more about what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia. Also can you remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes and the end of any post. XinJeisan (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this point may be getting confused. Since the Center for Study of Women at a major university co-sponsored and wrote about the performance, that fact would seem to establish its notability. If UCLA were the university that Merhman attended, I'd agree that her performing there wouldn't establish notability. But that's not the case. As an outside university saw fit to showcase the performance's to Women's Studie, it would seem to me to be notable. 68.7.242.144 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrmand's CV at http://bang.calit2.net/elle/?page_id=120 lists a number of public exhibitions in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana, but also farther afield in Canada, Colombia, etc. Her work has been exhibited at major galleries like LACE in LA, and notably at ISEA, the largest international exhibition of electronic art. 128.54.43.222 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't delete Elle Mehrmand's page. Micha Cárdenas and Elle Mehrmand : Mixed Relations (1) on the Pharmakon Library would be a perfect addition to their research 'hallway': http://pharmakonlibrary.blogspot.com/

These images portray the technology used in the series mixed relations, a collaboration between Micha Cárdenas and Elle Mehrmand. mixed relations consists of a series of performances and workshops that explore the relations between bodies and technology within mixed realities. The performances focus on using the body as an instrument to produce live audio, linking the physical and virtual worlds. The goal is to look at bodies in relation to each other, as well as in relation to the technologies which extend and multiply them, sonically, visually and physically. The performances explore themes of affective tension andanticipation, techno-fetishism, and D.I.Y. cyborg bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly Eskew (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Hols (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Holly Eskew is the same name as an artist who has performed with the subject of this article: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=holly+eskew+Elle+Mehrmand

Just because they performed in the same event does not mean they performed together, which they did not. Again, a demonstrated lack of understanding about contemporary art. Also, Eskew's sources are still valid regardless of her being in the same event. You're using an Ad Hominem argument against her point. The Pharmakon Library is a respected art project supported by an established gallery, the Silverman Gallery in San Francisco. 128.54.33.44 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it could be that because of their relationship that Holly Eskew has a conflict of interest Wikipeida policy requires editors who might have a conflict of interest to declare such an interest. If Holly Eskew the artist is the same person as Holly Eskew, it should be taken into consideration when reaching consensus on whether this article should be deleted or not. XinJeisan (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Comment'" What conflict of interest? Anyone can point to a reliable source that supports *the best kind of evidence* for a local respected art project --Mehrmand's credits on the Pharmakon Library have nothing to do with me, Holly Eskew the artist, the same person as Holly Eskew. The full body of an artist's work should be taken into consideration when reaching consensus on whether Elle Merhman's page section should be deleted or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly Eskew (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Hols (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree the standards we should use are WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE, as the subject is a performace artist. She would fail WP:PROF badly, as a graduate student. I am not sure if she passes any of the guidelines or rules, from a quick view of the sources already in the article. Several citations are to blogs; she was reviewed by Art21, but it's not clear that she appeared on that notable PBS show. Also, the sources only point to touring in California and Nevada, not internationally, and the some of those sources are blogs, which normally are not considered reliable. I'll place a rescue tag on it, just in case -- we want to have more articles of interest to women. Onto WP:BEFORE, I will try to find additional sources, but I am not ready to state whether this should be kept or deleted. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I searched online for addtional sources, saw some more, and added one from Google Books. I also copyedited it a bit. I think she is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am still working on another article, and can not do all of the heavy lifting of rescuing every worthy article out there. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is part of the collective who created the Transborder Immigrant Tool, which definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. She appears with the group in this news story about the project: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8159-after-the-storm.html I found a number of citations about the project, which the subject worked on, and added them to the "Reviews" section of the page. 68.107.20.125 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, Mehrmand's credits on Version is a reviewed journal, submissions have to go to Jordan Crandall and Caleb for review. NOTE: ATTRACTIONS.JORDAN+CRANDALL.HOTEL.042109 and latter *HOTEL* (the film) won all kinds of awards, and validates the sites worthiness. See: AROUSALS.ELLE+MEHRMAND.MICHA+CÁRDENAS .EROTIC+ELECTROSYMBIOTIC+ENCOUNTERS .032310 [48]. This documents an autobiographical narrative which is an important element in some feminist work. See the French Feminist Hélène Cixous and her view on "Writing the Body" ~ pointing to women who draw on personal archives and autobiographical narratives in a collective memory and to those political transformation in later years. ref: Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre by author Sue-Ellen Case Hols (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is another reliable source for mehrmand's work, HASTAC is part of the macarthur foundation and this article describes an event at Duke University, not local to UCSD at all, supported by a broad range of departments: http://www.hastac.org/events/visiting-artists-micha-c%C3%A1rdenas-and-elle-mehrmand-duke also, the article mentioned above from Linzi Juliano is an academic source, so it seems to fulfill the NPOV requirements, even though the publishing organization was one of the co-sponsors. It is not a summary, it is a review including praise and criticism such as this: "This sexualized pain, as well as elle’s shifting between conductor and echo arguably provided a more stimulating visual than the screen image with its barren landscape and generally respectful inhabitants". (p. 25) Omgchead (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article list notable museums that have shown this person's work, thus proving they are notable. It also list major newspapers that have given them coverage. Dream Focus 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article, and those found at google news, has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. Onthegogo (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though history will show that the amount of attention devoted to "performance artists" like this was the intelligentsia's equivalent of pet rocks and mood rings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant, significant coverage exists for this person except for some sources talking about Transborder Immigrant Tool, but this isn't the article on Transborder Immigrant Tool, and everything that needs to be said about that subject is already at Locative media. Note that there's a number of related articles (Electronic_Disturbance_Theater, Electronic Disturbance Theatre, Micha_Cárdenas, Ricardo Dominguez (professor)) all equally as badly sourced as this one.--Sloane (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of relevant, significant sources cited in this article, including original writing in journals, reviews which discuss the artist's work, book chapters and educational sources. Which one do you have a problem with? The artist in question is involved in the Transborder Immigrant Tool as well as a number of their own projects, which have been presented in museums and galleries in numerous different countries. Your claim is very vague, which leads me to think that there must be some other bias you're speaking from. Or can you specify which source you think should be removed? 68.101.205.18 (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject appears to fail WP:GNG, as most findings on google, do not appear to meet WP:RS criteria, or are do not provide "significant coverage" and/or may not be considered as "Independent of the subject", therefore does not contribute to the individual being notable. Notability maybe found for the tool that the subject may have assisted in creating that received significant news coverage, however, that does make the subject them self being notable, but the tool/app; and itself may only warrant mention in the broader context of the issue that it relates to (illegal immigration in the united states, united states mexico border, and other such articles). Per WP:BASIC, the depth of coverage given to the individual is not "substantial". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right Cow? This person is certainly neutral "This user is or was a member of The United States Army. This user is or was a United States Army ROTC Cadet. GOP This user supports the U.S. Republican Party." But this user also doesn't list specific articles that are problematic. There are such a wide variety of sources that establish WP:GNG including an Art21 article (a hugely respected art publication) that directly discusses Mehrmand's work, apart from the Transborder Immigrant Tool, and a scholarly publication that discusses her performance at UCLA and originally authored journal articles by the subject that are not part of the Transborder Tool. I don't see why a contemporary artist should be considered by WP to be less notable because they are involved in a large number of collaborations with other artists. It makes them more notable, actually. 128.54.40.19 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article and discussion cite a number of sources that establish notability and WP:GNG from a number of angles. Arguments for deletion seem to focus on individual sources which in themselves don't establish notability. But the existence of unconvincing sources should not detract from the fact that other sources are cited that do establish notability. 68.7.242.144 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gareth Herincx

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 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, without prejudice to any further discussion leading to a consensus to merge this information elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Game

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. (Author contested prod.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this would comfortably pass notability I did the most cursory of search not much on google news [49] but several websites like:

[50] it is more of an event than a game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sourcing to show notability. The sources given by Tetron76, when translated, also look to be advertisements, press releases, and non independent. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made my response quickly and added the first link from google news which as pointed out would fail notability requirements.

The second source I gave above [51] comes from the official NASDAQ OMX Group as proven to be genuine from the link on [52]. This sources might well be considered not independent but its size and legitimacy strongly suggest "presumed sources" in Baltic language newspapers.

Several other sources I found come from Stockholm School of Economics in Riga which is not independent but did win an award in part for this event [53] but since the award came from NASDAQ OMX Baltic this is one big circle.

I think the following two sources are independent and count as RS to establish WP:GNG:

From The financial [54]

The second I am not 100% sure about meeting the requirement is from balticbusinessnews.com [55] by Marge Tubalkain-Trell who has had articles in the The Baltic Times [56]

At worst this is a case of not just yetTetron76 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chas (newspaper) has coverage at [57] and if you want a translation [58]

Certainly one of the most challenging, but very exciting activity is the investment game (Investment Game). Certainly one of the most challenging, but very exciting activity is the investment game (Investment Game). This kind of simulation of stock transactions, which takes place annually and collects a large number of participants from all over Latvia. This kind of simulation of stock transactions, which takes place annually and collects a large number of participants from all over Latvia. Main feature of this game is that it runs in real time, with shares of real companies (about 300 firms from the Baltic States, Russia, Finland and Sweden) and with no less than the real exchange rate, which is updated every 15 minutes. Main feature of this game is that it runs in real time, with shares of real companies (about 300 firms from the Baltic States, Russia, Finland and Sweden) and with no less than the real exchange rate, which is updated every 15 minutes. The only thing in this game is virtual, so it's money, ie, your 100,000 Euros, which you virtually buy their shares. The only thing in this game is virtual, so it's money, ie, your 100,000 Euros, which you virtually buy their shares. Imagine, what should the broker to make a profit, and you will understand the essence of the investment game. Imagine, what should the broker to make a profit, and you will understand the essence of the investment game. The game is as close to reality, and its purpose - to find the most successful "brokers" who will receive cash and prizes. The game is as close to reality, and its purpose - to find the most successful "brokers" who will receive cash and prizes. Plus everything you learn to follow the stock market, analyze the situation in companies, in general, all these things, without which it can hardly be a very good economist. Plus everything you learn to follow the stock market, analyze the situation in companies, in general, all these things, without which it can hardly be a very good economist.

It is unlikely that you have the opportunity to play this season since it opened on Nov. 10, but you have time to prepare for the next! It is unlikely that you have the opportunity to play this season since it opened on Nov. 10, but you have time to prepare for the next! Participation in the game is free for all. Participation in the game is free for all. And if you're in SSE Riga, then do not miss the annual party, dedicated to launch Investment Game! Now you understand how the Swedish raises these economists? And if you're in SSE Riga, then do not miss the annual party, dedicated to launch Investment Game! Now you understand how the Swedish raises these economists?

Notable coverage has been found. Dream Focus 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now sufficient reliable sources to keep this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, per WP:MERGE criterion 'context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it would also be reasonable to merge the content as suggested above—editors can do that now or some time in the future. Cool Hand Luke 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jevrem Jezdić

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

No references for biography. Revista de Literaturas Populares does not have this article, "Stories, Interviews, and Critical Essays" has no isbn, not found in Internet. Andreas ^(T) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable enough, and we have other numerous sources. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom states that there are no sources, which is clearly not true, even if they are hard to find. Notability is established by the subject's numerous published works. Additionally, Serbian Wikipedia seems to find their version acceptable. Disclosure: I accepted this article's AFC submission and moved it into the mainspace. Incidentally, a note on my talk page would have been appreciated. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liandra Dahl

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

Delete. Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources provided present significant coverage about this individual, outside of commercial sites and self-published profiles of the subject's like and dislikes and what not. No indication that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Cind.amuse 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to say delete, but I'm not entirely sure: The Herald Sun article is the only source at the moment which comes close to demonstrating notability, but I do not consider it sufficient to meet either WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG since it is only one source. However the article says that she has been interviewed by 3 other media organisations, in which case these guidelines may be met. I've had a look for them online, without any luck, so am essetially unsure what to suggest.
- Comment. See comment below. Cind.amuse 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two articles by the Herald Sun referenced now and a news.com.au article also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankdouglas (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See comment below. Cind.amuse 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources via these articles The Herald Sun, news.com.au and The Herald Sun 2nd. So there is indication that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Frankdouglas (talk)

Comment. The first herald.sun.au article is a significant article about Dahl. However, the news.com.au article is a mirror and exact copy of the second herald.com.au article. These two articles are not about Dahl, but focus on the porn industry in Melbourne. Dahl offered a comment, along with several current and former models. Wholly insignificant coverage of the subject. Cind.amuse 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it may be a mirror article in news.com.au but it is another independent source that saw fit to give further coverage to the article. As the articles are all related to following the effects of the first article and Dahl's blog on the Australian industry I think they are obviously significant coverage of the subject and all three articles go towards establishing the significance of Liandra Dahl. Frankdouglas (talk)

Don't delete Liandra Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, That while masturbating either alone or with others she provides a genuinely honest and intelligent running commentary of how she feels from arousal, to climax. She's done this on the Australian sites like ifeelmyself.com and now on her own site and I've never seen anyone do anything like it before. What she does is new and fresh and because it is unique, rather than deleting, it needs defining and classifying. and those two things need qualifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natrisomaticalopticalise (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...talking while rubbing one out is now a new & exciting porn genre. Lulz. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Cited news coverage is limited to a single event and provides no useful information about the individual herself. If the event itself were notable, a BLP1E merge might be considered, but it seems pretty generic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A promotional fluffer of a biography for a non-notable pornographic movie performer. Fails PORNBIO. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffer. I see what you did there. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet any applicable notability guideline. Being quoted in one article for critiquing porn doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. ...to delete outright, at least. The principle Thyduulf supports is unresolved (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough) as to whether such bus route lists should be viewed as in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of real places, or should be viewed as a WP:NOTDIR violation. The assertion that "Wikipedia is not a bus directory" doesn't help answer the question, even if "true" (i.e., consensus-supported interpretation), as what makes an article a "directory" or not can be a matter purely of detail and presentation (e.g., including ephemeral info such as timetables, street intersections for bus stops) rather than subject matter. Particularly given the vast number of bus route articles that exist (take a look at Category:Bus routes in England, for example) it would probably be best to have an RFC or other centralized discussion to resolve the issue, rather than try to delete individual lists here or there when the reasons for deletion target the whole subject rather than being specific to that list. This particular list is unsourced at present, but I do not see an argument that it is unverifiable, nor is there a clear way to apply WP:GNG here. I encourage a merger discussion, however, per Redrose64, and I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Central Suffolk

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory! Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This needs expansion so that it covers more than just the changes on 1 April 2011, but it is well established that lists of public transport provision in sizeable areas are encyclopaedic lists. If you look at actual travel guides and directories of bus routes you'll find they do not convey the same information as encyclopaedic lists of bus routes such as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to recreation, as the nominator has recently been blocked as a sockpuppet whose alternate account voted "Keep" in at least one other related discussion. See [59] for further information. --NellieBly (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This page is being updated and contains info on several places. It is a notable page. The user who has created this is not a sockpuppet, and his other account is now being deleted by him. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was talking about User:Highhousefarm1, the nominator of the AFD, not you, the creator of the page. What other account, incidentally? --NellieBly (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the nominator has since been unblocked by the admin who blocked him. See [60]. Hence, the closing admin should not take the block into account against him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article, except for a link to a petition which (a) is not a reliable source and (b) does not mention most of the routes listed in this article. Also, Wikipedia is not a bus directory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, the use of randomly colored numbers in this article with no explanation violates the Manual of Style guidelines on colors. That's not a reason to delete the article, it's just a complaint I am offering here in case anyone wants to explain the colors within the article. Otherwise, even if the article is kept, the colored text is likely to be de-colorized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what that has got to do with anything here? Yes the colours need explaining or removing, but that's irrelevant as to whether the page is kept or not, so why mention it? Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that issue here because this AfD discussion is bringing more attention to the article, and, consequently, mentioning problems with the article here raises the likelihood that someone will fix those problems. I think I have figured out an explanation for the colors; they are probably supposed to represent the colors associated with the respective bus operating companies. But the use of those colors still interferes with accessibility (even for non-colorblind users, the numbers in yellow are basically illegible), and would be unnecessary and (in my opinion) unattractive even if everyone had equal ability to distinguish color. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The colours refer to the colours of the operating companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mugliston (talk • contribs)
- I previously mentioned that problem at Talk:List of bus routes in Central Suffolk#Overcoloured. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article covering the whole of Suffolk. Most of the rest of England is covered by county-wide articles, don't see why Suffolk should be split down further. Suffolk is not exactly bursting with bus routes - compare Greater Manchester which could be split into ten, but isn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro90, Satisfies neither general, nor sector specific notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. I know of no basis for interpreting WP:BLP1E to cover one-time award/championship winners. But in any event, notability has not been established, and the keep arguments are neither substantive nor supported. Jenks24 stated the issues well. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Morris (Scrabble)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Not really notable for any event. He did win the World Scrabble Championship two decades ago, but I don't think that equates out to warrant a Wikipedia article. There has been no news coverage of this person since, hence delete. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are large on-going issues to do with what counts as a notable person in the games field. The sports notability criteria include obscure sports which will not get much coverage with minimal requirements to count. For games these issues have not been drawn-up. However, I think the GNG get complicated as why should winning a Gold medal be viewed as different from winning an award in another field. This is where the one thing issue comes into play, does winning the first ever world championship in a game equate to just one thing? For me it represents much more than one thing and demonstrates notability in the field. Should winning the national championships be viewed as a second event. Chess, Magic the Gathering and poker all have technical categories that allow for less skillful players to count.Tetron76 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with tetron76, there isnt a policy really saying Scrabble players are not notable. And for that reason i say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People reading about the history of the Scrabble world championships would likely also want to read about the people that won each of the events. HumphreyW (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tetron76 (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't researched this enough to determine if Morris is notable or not. However, I do have a few comments. Firstly, notability is not temporary, so the fact that he won the world championship 20 years ago, as opposed to say two years ago, is not really relevant. Secondly, if there is no subject-specific guideline in place for scrabble players (and it appears there isn't), then we should use the general notability guideline to determine if the person is notable. That means we shouldn't be comparing him to other board game players, but simply asking ourselves "has this person received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is not just notable as a Scrabble champion but is also notable as a baseball historian and author. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how? I don't see any sort of non-trivial coverage of this person as either a baseball historian or author. I hate to call your claims dubious, but... PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person with insignificant coverage. All references to this individual are from Scrabble sites and his own website. Except for Colonel Warden's claim of notability (which I don't see borne out in my searches), none of these keep votes are even based in policy. Looking for a policy that specifically declares Scrabble players to be non-notable? People interested in the world of Scrabble are interested in the world of Scrabble? What kind of rationales are these? This individual is only known (to an extremely limited amount of people) for winning Scrabble tournaments and he is already listed on both World Scrabble Championship and National Scrabble Championship. I also don't believe his writing and editing work for Wiley meet any of the criteria from WP:AUTHOR. — Bility (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Falls under WP:BLP1E or just 1E if he is dead. Abductive (reasoning) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Ake

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

Originally PROD tagged for "Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - PROD removed after coverage of charity work being done for the Sendai Earthquake was added. This may qualify as recentism WP:RECENT or does this fulfill WP:GNG? Delusion23 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Hunt (psychologist)

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

I put a PROD tag on this for lack of third party sourcing. The PROD was removed, but the only sources provided were a couple of blog hosted book reviews. I've searched further, but I have been unable to find any third party biographical sources, so this article would seem to fail the general notability guideline and the guidelines on people. As you look for sources, keep in mind that Jan Hunt's organization is the 'Natural Child Project' and anything published by them is actually self published, not independent. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable professional; basically unsourced BLP, since reliable sources don't seem to exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, so seems not to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. GB fan (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a book review on ProQuest written by Debra Brin for the Canadian alternative newspaper Briarpatch. Whether this lends to her notability or not, I don't know. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bonser

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

Candidate in previous election. Never elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria for anything else. This article was previously speedy deleted in 2005 but it somehow snuck back in.

Recommend delete or redirect to Green Party of Canada candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Suttungr (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the original 2005 version of the article consisted solely of the text Greg Bonser lives in the South Riverdale community in Toronto. He is a Real Estate Developer and a community activist on issues of ecological health. So the fact that it was deleted doesn't, in and of itself, preclude this version of the article from existing, as it's too different from the original to qualify for G4 speedy. Ergo, it's not a matter of "somehow snuck back in" — we have to consider this on its own merits. That said, its own merits are still virtually nonexistent: as written, he fails to meet any of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO or even WP:GNG. The article is completely unsourced, and parts of it (particularly the claim that all the other candidates in the race privately confided that he was their second choice) are entirely unverifiable. Our practice for unelected political candidates who don't have notability on other grounds has traditionally been to redirect them to a party candidates list rather than deleting them outright, however, so this should be redirected to Green Party of Canada candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election — but don't merge this article's content, as there's nothing properly referenced to merge. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to candidate page. Not notable for anything else. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a redirect. Failed political candidate with no other claim to notability. The highest office he ran for was city council, so a redirect to the federal election article is inappropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, Bonser did run as a candidate for the Federal riding of Scarborough Centre in 2004 even though the article doesn't say so. I recommended redirect since this seemed to be the most notable of his election attempts. Suttungr (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PSU TV

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

Organization lacking reliable sources to establish notability. It isn't recognized by the school as a media outlet or even a club, so it's hard to come up with rationale that it should be recognized by Wikipedia as a media outlet or club. It's been written about a few times in the student newspaper, not even mentioned in larger news outlets. tedder (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Having some articles about it in the campus paper does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No references provided clearly meet WP:RS, therefore notability has not been established — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Field

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

Article fails Wikipedia:Notability, there are no reliable sources establishing notability. Sloane (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep - I recommend cleaning this article up. There's references out there, mostly in foreign languages. Just because SDEnternet does a horrible job of publicizing this game doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Fightin' Phillie 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin' Phillie (talk • contribs)
- Comment Can you post some of those sources here?--Sloane (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any reviews listed at gamespot, IGN, metacritic, or anywhere else. We should avoid systemic bias so if Phillie can link to any foreign-language coverage I will re-evaluate. Marasmusine (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Did the same search Marasmusine did, and I also could not come up with anything. If these "foreign language sources" can be shown, then I might reconsider after looking at them. –MuZemike 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My impression was that this game was pretty notable, though so far I've only really found one impartial review [[61]], I will keep looking Monty ₈₄₅ 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also some more reasonable reviews: ~~[62],~~ [63], and a pretty stubby review, but still a review: [64]. I think this game is pretty well known in some gaming circles, and has enough critical press coverage to survive the notability standard. The critical reviews are hard to find in the flood of user reviews and patch update news. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reviews count as reliabloe sources. 1 is a review at a fansite for submarine games, 2 is a user-submited review at gamefaqs, and the other two are reviews at MMO portals.--Sloane (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that the first one may pass for reliability after looking at [65]. However, the GameFAQs one is user-submitted and not reliable at all, while I can't find anything to see how MMOHut could be considered reliable. Since there is at least one there, I'll change to a weak delete. –MuZemike 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the 2nd, but I think the fist MMO portal review in particular should count (link #3), it is clearly more then a proforma rehash of a press release, instead providing a pretty reasonable amount of coverage. #4 isn't as strong in that regard, so I can understand if you reject it. And on the sub fan site one, that I think is a pretty strong one, they seem to be taking a serious approach to the subject and providing a critical review; while its not coverage from main stream media, I think they are serious enough about the subject area that they should be treated as a credible source for the subject area. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I appreciate the time you've spent searching for sources. But... :) MMOHut comes up frequently, but it's really not accepted at the moment as a reliable source: self-published, enough poorly-written reviews to make me think there's inadequate editorial control, and a lack of information about how the site works editorially. I think the Subsim site is probably the strongest of your links. It is still an WP:SPS so a little further investigation is needed to see if Neal Stevens can be considered an "established expert in his field". Marasmusine (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few to no reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews, some with very substantial coverage. That some of them are relatively weak sources is not fatal, the way it would be if there were only one weak review. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's look at the three sources again. [66] is a review from a site pretty much run by two brothers [67], so it fails WP:V ("Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.") [68] offers a TWO sentence review, and is a site run by probably one person, again failing WP:V. [69] seems to be the only site that perhaps has some editorial oversight. But it's still a weak source. This article clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTE, --Sloane (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four-stage model of data compression

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

Delete Original research. —Ruud 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay which doesn't even pretend at providing encyclopedic coverage of a topic through the citation of published sources. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources indicating that this four stage model is a notable concept rather than original research. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOR jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Girl

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

Fails WP:BLP1E; no other indication of notability. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It even has New York Times coverage rtner=rss&emc=rss please give a bit of time to finish the article. Tüzes fal (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it fails WP:1E. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. This is not significant, and might have a better chance of being included as part of another article, but has no notability on its own. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if we rename it UCLA Girl Video and write about the significance of the video only? Tüzes fal (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I cannot and will not speak for everyone, in my opinion this article has no weight, and should be deleted, as the video, person, and event are not notable enough to warrant a separate article. While there are sources detailing the video, and they may be enough to provide inclusion in another article, a separate article is not appropriate. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"they may be enough to provide inclusion in another article" Which one is the other article, where it would be OK? Tüzes fal (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete Obviously as creator I ask please do not delete. I think there are enough sources now and many many more can be found if you look for them. Tüzes fal (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is right within the wheelhouse of WP:BLP1E. A different article on the same topic was deleted last Friday, speedily, and I see no reason why this one shouldn't be as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The bio of this no-hit wonder under her real name was recently deleted on One Event grounds. This far inferior new incarnation should receive the same fate. And salt. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remade the article so it is no longer a biography. Arguments dealing with the article being an inappropriate biography no longer apply, I even removed any hint of the identity of the Video's creator from the article. The article now only intends to deal with the video. Please reconsider in light of the above. Tüzes fal (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, this still fails WP:1E. The subject of this article does not have lasting notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was renamed, the new name is UCLA Girl Video. I went to the link you give and it said "People notable for only one event", however the article is no longer about "people". It is about a video now. Anyone is welcome to edit the article more so it would comply with the policies. Please. Tüzes fal (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the person is not notable as per WP:1E, the event is not notable as per WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. It is my opinion that if the information in this article is in any way preserved, it should be merged into a relevant article, not as its own article. The event received media coverage, but it was short lasting and very likely will never be heard from again. According to WP:PERSISTENCE, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." - SudoGhost (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BLP1E does not warrant a standalone article for a single event that will die quickly and an example of Wikipedia:Recentism. Merging into ching chong is a possibility, though non-relevant details will need to be removed to include there, as evidenced by a previous reversion —Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BLP1E—Chris!_c/t 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHURCHILL - The Musical

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

The musical has (on the surface) an impressive website, but I'm concerned as to whether the play itself is in any way notable. It appears to have had only a single performance, at the Lagoa Auditorium in Southern Portugal. Lagoa is a village/town of around 6,000 residents. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and may I suggest adding Andy Chafer, Trevor Holman and Derek Charles Ash, fellow-residents of a rather spammy WP:Walled garden. Shire Reeve (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would go along with that, and add Ray Jeffery. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Related articles now bundled in AFD discussion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Churchill - The Musical had 10 performances and was extremely notable as it was the first of its kind EVER in Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott909 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Could you define "first of its kind EVER in Portugal."? Are you talking about West End/Broadway style musical theatre in general? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this sort of west end/brodway musical theatre had never been premiered in Portugal ever before, and therefore I think it notable. Please note that I am not benefiting from posting these pages, I am not part of the company at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott909 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply I have some difficulty believing that, as there appears to be a fairly strong tradition of musical theatre in Portugal, with theatres in Lisbon such as the Teatro Politeama pretty much devoted to the genre. There certainly appears to be a number of Portuguese musicals and adaptations of West End musicals. Churchill, from the evidence here, seems a little parochial in comparison... like an amateur drama society production put on by ex-pats (not intended as a criticism, I'm sure it was excellent). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CHURCHILL - The Musical had a mixed cast of both professionals and amateurs. The four principals were all professionals, as was the Director, the Lighting Designer and the Choreographer who had only arrived back from America the day before rehearsals began, where he had been working on 'Dancing with the Stars' for NBC Television. I think Scott909 meant to say this was the first 'World Premiere of a new stage musical' to take place in Portugal as was testified by the TV companies that came from Lisbon to interview the writers and producers. As far as I can see this entry is simply stating a series of facts. The show was written (Fact), it received its World Premiere in Portugal (Fact) and it played to packed houses (Fact - ticket stubs available for verification if required). On their website (www.churchillthemusical.com) you can listen to radio interviews conducted by Kiss FM which tell you CHURCHILL - The Musical certainly wasn't 'a little parochial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH1706 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — TH1706 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I am now in the process of going through the articles and making sure they are not part of a WP:Walled garden. I will add links to other wikipedia pages and references to external sites for verification of information. I hope this goes someway to helping the case for these items to stay on the wikipedia site Scott909 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of how important this play may be to the locals, it is apparently not notable beyond the boundaries of the community served by the venue. In an attempt to "sell" the article, it is now padded with non-encyclopedic trivia such as how many stagehands there were. Remove the promotional text, the ego stroking, and the trivial information and the lack of notability becomes very apparent. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the amount of stagehands is a FACT about the show? This is a factual encyclopedia is it not? I feel like you are being very delete-happy with these posts, and should perhaps suggest revisions which I would be more than happy to implement on how to make these articles up to your standards Scott909 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most important improvements at the moment would be those that illustrate and/or support the notability of the subject(s) of the article(s) within the standards established for Wikipedia. The addition of trivial facts does not lend notability to a subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Clearly not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur theatre production and non-notable amateur thespians. none of this meets the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain your definition of 'notable' as it seems to differ greatly from mine and many others. Scott909 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has a fairly specific usage in Wikipedia. Have a read of WP:GNG, WP:MUS and WP:CREATIVE. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears that this musical, and all of the above articles created in an attempt to make it seem notable, are non-notable, failing under WP:MUS and WP:ORG and all other criteria of WP:NOTE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this musical is notable, with many newspapers from the country covering the progress story of it's creation and the like. Could I possibly be allowed to try and verify its notability? Scott909 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You'd need significant coverage of the musical from multiple independent, reliable sources. I'd be surprised if you could find much in the way of non-trivial coverage in anything past local and weekly ex-pat press like the Algarve Resident and The Portugal News, both of which are based in Lagoa. Make sure that it conforms to WP:NRVE:

“

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

”

What would be ideal would be reviews of the show from newspapers equivalent in circulation level to The Times, The Guardian, etc. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Balzac (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Men on Earth

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

No notability Albacore (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability, fails WP:NALBUMS. LK (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darilyn Rowan

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar yields a paltry four entries. Created by a WP:SPA, User:Regina fine arts. Over half the edits are due to User:Regina fine arts, User:Reginarowan, and an an IP address in Torrance, California, the location of the subject's purported employer, El Camino Community College. There are no inline citations, and the sources presented are less than reliable (The El Camino Community College student newspaper, for example); the vast majority consist of the subject's accepted submissions to a handful of literary magazines and an annual photography trade magazine contest. (Honorable mention, though—great job!). The User:Reginarowan account has repeatedly removed improvement templates: [70], [71], [72], [73] and vandalized the {{Autobiography}} template. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Reginarowan has removed the AFD template from the article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Reginarowan has moved the article to Professor Darilyn Regina Rowan. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reinstated the AfD banner on the article and warned the user who removed it. Feel free to reinstate it and warn again if this happens again. Also, while moving an article that is undergoing an AfD discussion is not a policy violation in and of itself, the move did add a title to the article name that is not allowed per WP:CREDENTIAL, so I moved it back. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

"Feel free to reinstate it and warn again if this happens again" So that I can be blocked for violating the WP:3RR? No thank you!
"while moving an article that is undergoing an AfD discussion is not a policy violation in and of itself" I never claimed that it was a policy violation. My experience is that AfD reviewers don't verify things beyond the first level wikilink. So if User:Reginarowan moves the article around enough reviewers will question the validity of the AfD rather than recognize "the article listed in the AfD is a redirect" as an attempt to hide and sanitize the target of the AfD. If you want proof of this, you need look no further than your edit in which you believed you restored "good faith" content which, upon closer examination, is actually career-minded promotion added by none other than User:Reginarowan: [74], [75], [76], [77]

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will respond to this response on your talk page, as nothing I have to say is germane to this deletion discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article history suggests creation/maintenance as a vanity page. In addition to the nom's observations, I would add that the article cleverly puffs routine academic work, e.g. "Rowan wrote a paper...which was published... A copy of the publication is in...the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and the Bibliotheque Nationale de France." This is something of a tautology that is true by the definition of "published work", i.e. copies are necessarily in the permanent collection of many institutions. The rest of the article carries this same theme, reciting some publications in obscure outlets (like the The Union Newspaper of El Camino College). References non-specific awards that also seem obscure. No indication of any real impact that might support a notability claim. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Having one's pictures published simply means that one is a working photographer. I see nothing in the article that suggests notability, nor can I find any sources in my own search to substantiate any notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this does not meet either GNG or POLITICIAN JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Broadwater

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

Non-notable minor political candidate who has never been elected to anything. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 9 news hits mention in passing as part of the pack, nothing unique except that he was the target of a satirical TV show on HBO. If becomes more notable I would have no objection to recreating the article. Seaphoto^Talk 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have significantly overhauled the article, added references to reliable third-party sources, and found a number of articles that cover the person in-depth, including a recent Associated Press story and the sustained national coverage following his 2004 interview with Borat. While his notability as a perennial candidate is tenuous, per point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN it should be just sufficient. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: It's sources like this ("Broadwater files at GOP to run for Miss. governor". New England Cable News. Associated Press. January 14, 2011.) that convinced me the article was worth the effort to rescue. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how it meets these guidelines? LibStar (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article begins "James Broadwater is an American author, small business owner, ordained Southern Baptist minister, and statesman from Mississippi.". Author? He has written one self-published book. Statesman??? Gimme a break! He is basically a fringe politician, one of five candidates in a current primary election; he has never even won a primary in his previous campaigns. He gets a couple of references but they are mostly not about him; they are about how he got fooled by Borat. [78] Only [79] this item from New England Cable News is about him - and his competitors - in the upcoming election. He fails WP:POLITICIAN because he has never held a significant office AND he does not have sufficient coverage to qualify under WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as MelanieN says, no way he meets WP:POLITICIAN and not enough to indepth coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect and split. Moreschi (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hands of God

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

Can find no reliable sources for this. I looked at the Polish article but sources were either no longer available even through the Internet archive, a forum (www.rbi.webd.pl) or didn't mention this pictogram. Even if real, which I can't verify,doesn't seem notable Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Ok, Delete per dab below. Thanks for that. Previously on AFD: Looking at the Polish EL that does work, and searching on the Polish term, there is clearly something there. I suspect we may not be using the correct English term, but a straight translation of the Polish/Russian one. Any symbol this distinctive (though variable) that goes back to prehistoric art is probably notable. Expert help needed. This item has been misclassified as science and technology - it should be visual art and whatever mythology is. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThat's just the problem, I can't find any evidence that this goes back to prehistoric art. This seems to be the correct classification for archaeology, which is the subject that encompasses prehistoric art. As an alleged prehistoric pictogram, neither visual art nor mythology would be the correct classification. I searched .pl Google books on the Polish term and couldn't find anything [80]. Your link shows images but nothing that seems useful. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the pot here, which crops up elsewhere, looks prehistoric to me. If this is the normal classification for archaeology, it shouldn't be, & prehistoric art, to state the bleeding obvious, is also "encompassed" by visual art. Please add to at least that list. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a claim that it was found in the village of Białej, near Łodzi, and is 5th century CE. Another issue of course is whether it is notable. I can't find pictures obviously not from that site, but I presume it exists. But is it notable? Or just another example of something? First of course, we need a reliable source, and the main site is an advocate one with no dating or anything for it. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google Books search on the Polish term in quotation marks yields 599 results. I am unable to evaluate them, but maybe we can get someone here who can. LadyofShalott 03:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Using Chrome they are all translated, eg. "he right hand of God the word meaning only closed churches" ".. I want you in our prayers during this person released and placed it in God's hands" ". the kingdom in the hands of God" Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unreferenced. People can always recreate it if they find some actual reference. In the meantime, this is just disinformation. I think this is a meme coined on the internet by Slavic neopaganism. Searching for the term does nothing, as it simply means "hands of god" and does exist as an expression in Slavic languages, unrelated to this alleged pagan symbol. If people want to discuss the art or the pottery of Bronze- or Iron-Age Poland, the article at Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland would be a good place for that. If Doug's research is correct, the pot would probably belong to the Pomeranian culture, and if any actual literature discussing this specific pot is found, it can always be added there. Until there isn't any sort of literature to go on, I am not sure why we are even having this discussion. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see what you did there Doug, you google-translated the Polish caption at File:ReceBogaSwargi.svg
Symbol z naczynia kultowego z Białej k/Łodzi zwany potocznie Rękami Boga.

As far as I can make out, this means "symbol on the cult vessel of Biała near Łódź, popularly known as 'Hands of God'". I suppose "Biała near Łódź" might be Biała, Zgierz County, although there are other candidates. And it's not like we have any sort of reference even for the "Biała near Łódź" bit. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

right, based on the information above, it turns out that the pot is notable. See this and this (p. 250).

Andrej Mikolajczyk, Didactic presentations of the past: some retrospective considerations in relation to the Archaeological and Ethnographical Museum, Lódz, Poland.

it turns out that this vessel was excavated just before the start of WWII, at a cremation cemetery of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, at "Biala, near Lódz". When the Nazis occupied Lódz (and renamed it to Litzmannstadt), a representation of the vessel became the new coat of arms of the town, supposedly as evidence "of the proto-Germanic character of central Poland". The Nazi medallion reproduced by Mikolajczyk shows the vessel, together with the text "EWIGER DEUTSCHER OSTEN / Urnenfund bei Litzmannstadt, 100 n. Z.". So the pot can be discussed in two contexts, Przeworsk culture and Lodz#World_War_II. To be fair, Nazis or no Nazis, the historical context of the 2nd century in central Poland is that of the Marcomannic Wars and the beginning of the Germanic migrations, and it is altogether likely that the pot and its design is associated with the early Vandals. --dab (𒁳) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have researched this and fixed the article, I suggest a split into Native Polish Church (for the neopagan symbol), Przeworsk culture (for the archaeological artefact) and Lodz#World_War_II (for its use by the Nazis). --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good to me. Thanks again for untangling this. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fine, I'm happy with this but no time to do anything official even if keyboard would stop jumping around and deleting. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann -- Your upload File:Medallion Urnenfund bei Litzmannstadt.png is rather small and blurry, but there's nothing in it which suggests it contains the elaborated symbol File:ReceBogaSwargi.svg (as opposed to the basic version of the symbol), so some of your edits are quite confusing... AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Soul Embraced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Alive (album)

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

Contains little content other than a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Almost a "keep" but not quite, could use another supersource or 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immune (album)

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

Contains no content other than a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Has coverage by AllMusic, and the article is sourced. I do agree that the article needs expansion.--3family6 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source, between the two notability should be established.--3family6 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per significant coverage in 3family6's comment. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Blood

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

Contains no content other than a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Album has detailed review on AllMusic. Expansion is what is needed, not deletion.--3family6 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, two third party sources should meet notability.--3family6 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Soul Embraced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For The Incomplete

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

Contains no content other than a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again. Non-notable at this juncture. If someone wants to recreate, do it in userspace. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and stick in the artist space if notable enough. Bennydigital (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NALBUMS. Rlendog (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermarket JMB

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG. Sources given are either not independent or are incidental mentions in other stories. Prod contested by creator ~~without explanation~~. Shire Reeve (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had tried to start a discussion about what (in detail) the concerns were about sources and notability on the article's talk page, but I had no response. I'm still learning about wikipedia etiquette, but I'd be grateful for more specific information about the concerns with this article so I can address them. As I pointed out on the talk page, there are plenty of similar - and arguably less notable - organisations, working in the same field that have wikipedia pages. many thanks Jpmaytum (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your feedback. As I say on the article's talk page, it's still a work in progress and I thought I'd start with links as to why a non-housing audience would have heard of the organisation. I'm happy to add some links to government/ professional sources with my next update in the hope of including the article. many thanks Jpmaytum (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm trying, in general, to increase the information about social housing forms and structres in the UK and am pulling together and editing entries to help with this. As I pointed out around the similar delection discussion for Kensington and Chelsea TMO, It is really hard to source good information about social housing as it is not widely covered in mainstream media and it is not a great area of academic research, although arguably it is an important area of public policy. This is made more challenging when the local media is either behind a paywall, or has little internet content. However I'm trying to ensure that I can source information to better demonstrate notability in this case

Jpmaytum (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have discovered some new quality sources to determine notability. A study by the Cities Programme at the London School of Economics ('The Inhabitant') which uses Leathermarket JMB as a model of resident involvement and does some detailed ethnography of residents on JMB estates. Likewise I've discovered an (older) UK Governemnt report that cites the JMB as a model of involvement and a report of a comment by Matthew Taylor (previously Tony Blair's chief strategy advisor) citing the JMB for its resident involvement.

Hope this is useful

Jpmaytum (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its obvious from this discussion that the article is being worked on and seems to be worth believing in as long as progress continues to be made. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

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

Merge to Principality of Transylvania. This article was erased in the past, but re-created. There is no need for a distinct article, because roughly all the content is contained in a section of the article about the Principality of Transylvania. Moreover, the term isn't widely used (only 12 Gooble Books results).
The name isn't mentioned at all in the articles about the two supposed rulers of "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" (John I of Hungary and John II Sigismund Zápolya). There were not two separate Hungarian kingdoms ("Western Hungarian Kingdom" and "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom") but a kingship dispute for the throne of Hungary between Ferdinand of Austria and John I of Hungary Iaaasi (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Principality of Transylvania, which correctly opens with a section on the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. While sourcing is not super-swell, there is a pretty good graphic or two here and the Transylvania article is also poorly sourced. Lose the info box of the latter article if necessary to make room for graphics. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was a separate entity, however it was not always like this. It is not entirely equal with history of Transylvania or history of Principality of Transylvania. After battle of Mohacs, there was not obvious who is the king of Hungary and (for instance) nobles supported John Zapolya (Janos Szapolyai) from the northern and western parts of Kingdom of Hungary too, his title was King of Hungary. It is not just about the Transylvanian region.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the map from the article the territory of the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" overlaps over the territory of the Principality of Transylvania. It is the predecessor of the Principality of Transylvania (Iaaasi (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment After decades it became the predecessor. Initially it was not like this. But it is not a reason to delete this article. The detailed informations about Eastern Hungarian Kingdom can be found here, on its own page. We do have enough space here to negotiate its historical processions. Page of Principality of Transylvania does not have to emphasize everything about this, that would be too long there. Another thing, this page is incomplete. We must improve it the deletion would be senseless in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reasons provided. Moreover it is acknowledged that the state in question existed and is referred to as "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" in reliable sources. Now it is even acknowledged that it was "the predecessor of the Principality of Transylvania" with that admission the last straws go out the window. Hobartimus (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Principality article, this is a mere fork (POV fork, even). Dahn (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Rapoport

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

Unremarkable minor league baseball player. Strikerforce (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players Alex (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only information from this article are statistics from stat sites, which is routine coverage and does not make this a notable minor league player even for a team minor league page. We can get stats for all players if this was the minimum criteria. Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players per the others, as he's young enough and at a high enough level (26 and in AAA) that a major league callup isn't unreasonable. If he retires without making the majors or obtaining notability for other reasons, his entry should be removed and the redirect deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Fick

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

Unremarkable minor league baseball player. Strikerforce (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. Alex (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the creation of the article, my personal feelings towards notability have changed. So has consensus under WP:WPBB/N. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable player per WP:WPBB/N. The text is prose synthesized from statistics sites, which is routine coverage, as opposed to being based on prevalence of articles from sources. This may be acceptable for a major league player, but should not be for a minor leaguer. Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC, and WP:WPBB/N. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players, like the others, but is it confirmed he's still in the Cardinals organization? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This [81] seems to imply he is still with them. Spanneraol (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players at most. I understand the letter of WP:WPBB/N, but "unremarkable" is literally one injury away (particularly for pitchers). Moreover, "unremarkable" has a different context if they were not still active. Lastly, unreferencedBLP is erroneous when it clearly has 2 sources listed(baseball-ref, milb).Emjaymem (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Maddox

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

Unremarkable minor league baseball player. Strikerforce (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Alex (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing "distinguishable" about this player is that he broke his finger. Not worth cluttering minor league article. Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Castañeda

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

Unremarkable minor league baseball player. Strikerforce (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Alex (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Watkins

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

Unremarkable minor league baseball player. Strikerforce (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references and external links are for Mike Moustakas, not Logan Watkins. Does not meet notability criteria at WP:BASE/N either from the text in the article (even if we assume references can be found to verify the text) and based on what I can search online. Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed all references to Mike Moustakas. Not surprisingly, this move left the article completely unreferenced. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players per past precedence. I added the minor league reference page. Spanneraol (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That would normally be acceptable, except the current article has not cited any sources, and I don't think enough could be found to even justify even a stub in the minor league article. "Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." (WP:BASE/N) Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players per Spanneraol. Alex (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Not enough for a standalone article, young enough that he could potentially be notable in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Fitzgerald

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

The article claims that Micheal Fitzgerald is an actor who is also a race car driver. The article lists no reliable sources that Fitzgerald is an actor. IMDB is in the External Links, but IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB. His race car driving notability is not established by an article about Sony working with his employer, Cork Racing, that only mentions Fitzgerald's name in passing. Another reference to his employer's website should not be used as the sole source of notability. A third reference mentions a Michael Fitzgerald being named best dressed man at an event; however, Michael is spelled differently ("ae" vs "ea") and does not otherwise qualify that this is the Michael Fitzgerald who starred in movie "XYZ" and is a race car driver with "ABC". This article is potentially building Frankenstein WP:DBTF, as no reference even mention the actor and driver are the same person. There is a press release that I found on the Internet that supports this article, but the press release is from Fitzgerald's employer, Cork Racing, and is hosted online by a PR firm. This article is lacking reliable sources that are not affiliated with his employer and that establish this is all the same Micheal (or Michael) Fitzgerald. Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been updated with further reference to the subject's recent acting profile. The subject has been named in the Irish Examiner article (a 100 year + national publication), dated 2006 as a driver for Cork Racing. Much effort has been completed in validating the information sources and notability. The subject should not be labelled as dubious because Micheal is reported as Michael. This is a common translation error. The mispronunciation/mispelling of the subject's native name in a report should not be negative. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bagumba (talk • contribs) is the nominator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Hunterscarlett (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Irish Examiner source is the sole independent reliable source in the article, but this three-sentence source's subject is Sony and Cork Racing, and Fitzgerald is only mentioned in passing. The dubious tag placed throughout the article is not so much for the spelling, but the fact that it is not verifiable that the actor and the race car driver are the same person per WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably fails verifiability but definitely fails notability not matter how one chooses to look at it. For general notability, I cannot find any coverage of significance to match this Micheal Fitzgerald regardless of it being pelled "ea" or "ae". As an actor, his imdb resume shows only one acting credit being "Agent #1" in a single episode of a TV series. As a race car driver, it is asserted he races Formula Ford which is a lower level series, and for which I can find no coverage to indicate that he is a notable driver. Perhaps somebody with some motorsport expertise can weigh in on whether he passes any of the motorsport critieria set out in WP:NSPORT. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes verifiability as proved by The Irish Examiner article. The subject passes notability because the subject has actually achieved more acting and writing credits than actually listed. The subject will gain further notability and reference with the 2011 releases. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards his racing experience Formula Ford is not a professional racing series, nor is Cork Racing an employer. In fact if you look up the webpage michealfitzgerald.com it automatically redirects to corkracing.ie indicating it is possibly a webpage set up by the subject himself. As for the acting experience he is one of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of actors who have had minor parts in the series' 20+ year run. I can see no current notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlough (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darlough has very few edits outside this topic

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further references added Hunterscarlett (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)— Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The new sources are not from third parties; they are all affiliated with Fitzgerald. WP:DBTF is mostly resolved. The best dressed man article is still dubious if it is him based on the claim that they look alike, but that doesnt establish his notability anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any true notability, minor acting parts, no coverage of significance. Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article shows as much, if not more notability and interest, as other motorsport drivers and Formula Ford drivers such as Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. Many newspapers in Ireland which would have further references only publish in hard copy. I think there is a big danger that this is turning into an American Idol vote instead of an objective collation of growing achievements. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)— Hisensed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - How does this article show notability? His career as an actor/writer is not substantial. And there is barely any mention of his motorsport activity. What exactly is he notable for? -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I echo the question "How does this article show notability?" Just stating it without explaining why is not enough. Comparison with other articles is of little relevance (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) even if it is true that those other articles do not indicate more notability than this one, which is open to debate. I don't know what you mean by "an American Idol vote". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument. Please explain this article's notability on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid article on a person who has achieved in Motorsport (in Formula Ford) and is achieveing in an acting career, This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. Exisitng articles exist with respect to other Formula Ford drivers. More Examples: Callum MacLeod, Josh Hill, Tim Blanchard, Tom Blomqvist, Jeremy Metcalfe in additon to Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. This article demonstrates the individual is achieving in two distinctive careers in 3 different countries on 2 different continents. Hisensed (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It needs to be questioned whether the negative comments are from users without an interest in motorsports and this might cloud an objective commentary.Hisensed (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"
Comment The idea that only users with an interest in the topic should comment is foreign to the nature of Wikipedia. I am also not at all sure why being an outsider might "cloud an objective commentary": if anything I can see a reason why the opposite might apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ With respect, one of the main point of contention raised is that that Micheal is 2 different persons. If that is not now an issue as, then that particular point needs to be addressed and corrected while further efforts are made to address the citations that have been deemed dubious or further 3rd party sources needed. The issues need to be seperated to enable each to be solved on its own merits—Hunterscarlett([User talk:Hunterscarlett|talk]]) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"

It is still a problem. There is still no one source that says they are the same person. What is needed is an independent reliable third-party that says "Micheal Fitzgerald, the actor, is also a race car driver." See examples in WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should order some fingerprints if the current photo match ups are not substantial ;-). hunters 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Under Construction Further 3rd party refences being sourced to satisfy the queries. Article tagged with "Underconstruction" tag. hunters 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

*KeepThis man is doing Irish racing drivers proud and his uncredited racing films are superb. He is proving there is life beyond racing using the skills gained in racing. A true life coach in the making. Keep her lit boyo! Irelands loss is Australia's gain. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JdRacingPadd has few edits outside this topic

Unfortunately none of that relates at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. In fact it amounts to no more than a long way of saying "keep because I like it". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe issues are:

1] Can the article facts be verified. {YES, as per the references).

2) Is there evidence of notability? (MAYBE, The subject is only notable in Ireland?)

3] Does subject have less references or is less notable than a number of other subject articles (NO, The subject has shown more distinct references and equal notablility as other aticles, why is that every fact in this artilce that has a reference has been further challenged for more reference when the following examples of similar subject material on Wikiepdia have multiple facts with little or no references at all?) Examples: Tom Kimber-Smith;Valle Mäkelä;Wil Traval;Peter Scarf;Mark Furze;Andrew Bibby;Myles Pollard. The main issue here is double standards, one harsh application of standards to this article while other articles in the same sphere are accepted. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 00:55, 01 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously commented above, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. You are invited to be bold and improve those articles, or nominate for deletion articles that you have found do not meet standards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the "keeps" from SPAs (one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet) really addresses the notability issue. I have looked at all of the references cited, and they all suffer form one or other of the following limitations: (1) does not mention Micheal Fitzgerald, (2) makes only brief passing mention of Micheal Fitzgerald, (3) not a reliable and independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." Trying to make a contribution with motorsport related facts from Ireland. Do not appreciate the "biting". Very deterred from further contributions. New users must spend more time under these "biting" attacks than time to research to add to articles or or add new articles.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not say "one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet" on the basis of the account being new: I said it on the basis of a careful study of the account's editing history. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry then to hide the fact because the possible sock puppet account is a new one would not be constructive. Secondly, if someone sets up an account and uses it only to edit in one area, then why is it offensive to call it a single purpose account? Why would anyone new to Wikipedia coming across that expression even think that it is offensive? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) is the creator of a secondary wikipedia account.JamesAWatson. - hunters 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) [reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." My thoughts exactly - this article needs time for the sources to come in. They are out there. hunters 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs)

The nomination looks to me as though it is intended seriously. On what grounds do you categorise it as "frivolous"?
There has never been an earlier deletion discussion on this article. As far as I can see your remarks about an earlier nomination for deletion must refer to a PROD, which you removed a little over two months ago. The author of an article removing a PROD from their own article does not constitute "a consensus to keep it in the past". Or have I missed something? I have searched thoroughly, and cannot find anything else relevant. As for "this article needs time for the sources to come in", aren't two months enough? If not then the sources must be rather hard to find. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Time

The article was created on [03:55 31 January 2011].
Before a cup of coffee could be made to celebrate my first contribution to Wikiepedia. The article was nominated for speedy deletion [03:57 31 January 2011]. The kettle hadn't even had a chance to boil.
Inching along with the new markup language reference sources were added [05:34 31 January 2011]. It was a fair contribution for a first effort. I thought it was a good achievment to leave it at that and go to soccer training.
Before I had a full nights sleep on it. The article was proposed for deletion via WP:PROD BLP [17:37 31 January 2011].
Before the week was out. The article was supplemented with specific citations as requested [00:59 03 February 2011].
On [00:17 17 March 2011] references to the article subjects education background were removed.
On the same day, [02:41 17 March 2011], the article's citations were removed.
Further, on the same day, [21:45 17 March 2011], the article was painted with further citation requests.
)On the same day,[08:06 22 March 2011], the article was nominated for deletion. hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Work & Life / Wikiepdia Balance Being a new contributor to Wikipedia, The first article contribution was made in good faith. The timeline shows that when more experienced users have questioned the article, the advice was addressed. However, in more recent weeks, this has become harrassment and is dressed up with references to Wikiepdia protocols which is unfair as how are new users to be aware of the library of protocols when they start. Being a full time student of Media(Communication & Journalism) with humble resources, this user cannot justify extended "chat room" discussions from hidden usernames. I would prefer to manage this time best by further contributions and references when I can, college schedule and life permitting. Not all subjects have instant modern internet enabled archive newspaper references, most exist only in traditional paper form. This whole exercise demonstrates new contributers are not welcome to wikipedia. Users are not given time to develop their wikiepdia skillset and articles are not given time to build the sources hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You should develop the article in your own user space until it meets quality standards before reintroducing it to the mainspace per WP:MINDREADER. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fan go fóill; ~~Coimeád~~ Is feidir libh an airteagal as Gaeilge a léamh ar Vicipéid anois. Ta suil agam do deanamh sibh an athas oraibh. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Start Irish to English Translation) Wait It is now possible for you to read the article in Irish at Vicipéid(The Irish Wikiepdia). It is hoped you will be pleased with this effort. (End Irish to English Translation) In additon, hopefully this Irish translation will grow the Irish/English Wikipedia integration. It is planned that this translation will enable the wider Irish speaking community to contribute the neccessary sources and references to the article.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent sources to establish notability. Claims that the article has not had enough time to mature are exaggerated: It was created on Jan 31st and it is now early April. If sources haven't been found yet, that most probably means there are none. --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any detailed coverage of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Féadfar an t-alt seo a fheidhmiú ar fhoras sealadach gan fuireach lena dhéanamh amach an bhfuarthas na nua-shócmhainni;JdRacingPaddy (talk)

Comment - Creating an unreferenced article on the Irish Wikipedia in hopes that maybe somebody in the future might add some reliable sources does not address the fact that this article in the English Wikipedia does not have such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of social psychologists

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of social psychologists

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

This page's content reflects a directory rather than appropriate encyclopaedic content (I have posted an elaborated rationale on the discussion page of the article) U3964057 (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that this is not an encyclopedia article. However WP has many lists. I don't see any problem with this one that it should be deleted. All of the people on it have articles, so are considered notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list of existing articles, per WP:LIST. There are a few redlinks that need articles, sources, or deletion, but this is not grounds for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Better than the average list created back in Wikipedia's early days, in that it does have some discriminating information about some of the individual entries, which is a step in the right direction. More of the same and some sourcing would be a good next step. Since we have (and have had for a long time) Category:Social psychologists, then under WP:CLN, a list of Wikipedia articles about social psychologists is perfectly acceptable. This one has the potential of doing things that a category cannot, such as providing information at a glance. Mandsford 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indiscriminate inclusion criteria: what is a "social psychologist" defined here and who regards what as their major contributions to the field? That said, these sort of lists are an invaluable source of in-links for articles which might otherwise be orphans and my own inclination is to look the other way on this "bad" list. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page should not become an outlet for a bunch of red links, but as it exists, it provide a valuable list of social psychologists who have the notability to warrant a page. It is no different than the numerous other lists that are linked to on the List of psychologists page. Whether or not a person has made major contributions to the field is an issue to be debated by editors of that person's page - once the page exists, it should be included here if the person is a social psychologist. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Povilas Stulga Museum of Lithuanian Folk Instruments

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

fails WP:ORG. no gnews for the name "Povilas Stulga". and in google it just reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Povilas Stulga" throws off the search. Try searching <kaunas museum folk instruments> and you get multiple references to this museum[82]. Examples:[83],[84],[85],[86]("wonderful collection"), [87]("fascinating array"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage. A page in one of the In Your Pocket City Guides [88], a page in Kauno diena [89], a page in 15 min [90]. Look for P. Stulgos muziejus in the LT articles (Stulgos is the possesive form of Stulga). It has a lot of minor mentions too because it hosts music/folk dance events; 350 Ghits for Stulgos muziejus [91]. The French govt mentions it as a participant in their 2007 La Nuit des musées [92], page 11. Novickas (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Kline

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

Non-notable contestant that she has not win the competition, prod removed. Though if she wins America's Next Top Model and will make her less notable. Too early for making her fame. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^work 16:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - ANTM-contestants usuallt gets quite productive modeling careers after participation. for that i say weak keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: not many do have successful careers that warrant WP articles. The consensus is that the winner and two runners ups might warrant an article, and the average tally of notable past contestants on each ANTM season is three. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL. The season hasn't ended yet, so there is no need to create an article about one specific constant who may or may not be the winner. WereWolf (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per BabbaQ. ANTM is a big show with a small roster of contestents. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSA. WereWolf (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly makes her notable other than her one appearance on a reality television show? WereWolf (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To become a contestant on the show you in reality have to have been a model for quite some time... also in exception to a few cases all contestants on the show has afterwards gotten lucrative modelling careers. I dont see a good reason to delete this article as of now.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. In fact, according the the Cycle 17 eligibility form (PDF), it is preferred that the model has not be part of a national modeling campaign within the past two years (with numerous other restrictions and requirements listed). In specific regards to Kline, I have found no sources that have stated that she appeared in any national modeling campaigns prior to Top Model. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. WereWolf (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete purely highly promotional piece of an unnotable reality show contestant. The consensus is that only finalists with notable post- or pre-show notability will have an article, and even then... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except in rare, extreme cases, one should not place a speedy tag on an article that is currently a subject of community debate at CAT:PROD, WP:XfD, or WP:AfD. So I removed your speedy tag. Please discuss this on the AfD page. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a copyvio in the way it's written, but the only place I can find it is later than this. Promotional, the sort of thing beauty contest entries are introduced with. If she wins the competition, I suppose she will have notability (yawn) but not until the result is known. ~~(Why doesn't WikiLeaks deal with important stuff like this? We NEED to know now!)~~ Peridon (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text looks like it was lifted from this article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. An attempt has been made to reword parts. As there's not a lot to say about her anyway, it wouldn't take much to reword it - if it survives. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more notable than any of the hundreds of Top Model contestants in the world, and with the competition still running, notabality from the show can't be established.. Maybe if she wins, or eventually has a lucrative career then we can revisit the page. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attila (metal band)

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

This band does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines at WP:BAND. I have not found significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This band is not notable as per WP:BAND, and Twitter is most certainly not a reference. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and remove (rock band) from Attila (rock band). The only Attila band that is notable is Billy Joel's first band. Eauhomme (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marsali Stewart

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

Can't find reliable, secondary coverage of this children's show presenter, definitely some IMDB coverage but nothing substantial and secondary. With better references I'd presume presenting the two children's television shows, if they were notable themselves, would meet WP:ENT #1, but that still requires reliable verification. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to find the sources required to show Stewart meets either WP:ENT or WP:GNG.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Semington Aqueduct

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

fails WP:GNG. not all aqueducts are notable especially one as unremarkable as this one. this one gets nothing in gnews [93] gbooks reveals WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see that there is a category for navigable aqueducts in England. Is there anything that differentiates other aqueducts that have articles (and presumably have been considered notable to this point) from, say, this one? Kansan (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is only likely to cause confusion - they are two different structures that happen to be located near each other. Merging articles when their subjects have a similar location, while keeping other equally notable subject's articles separate is not very useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with the nominator that this aqueduct is not notable enough to sustain a separate article. However, I see no reason why the info should be deleted, and it would quite happily sit as a section on the Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, named bridges are regarded as being notable, and this is one of a small number of aqueducts in England, and one of only several to have been recently constructed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Semington Aqueduct as the two topics go naturally together and the naming is not so clear that we can be sure that readers will be wanting the old or the new. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two totally different structures. I think that readers will benefit from the clarity in having two separate articles. As noted above, named bridges are generally notable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Pushkin (Bourganov)

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

No indication of notability of this statue by itself. Fails WP:GNG. Cannot determine if a reasonable redirect target exists. Contested PROD with request this be taken to AFD. Ravendrop 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources have written about this statue, as it is the first statue of a Russian literary figure to be erected in the United States. There's [94], [95], [96] (which I admit is more about Whitman and homophobia in Russia, but still). A quick mention in Washington Life Magazine: [97]. There are two articles available behind paywalls from National Public Radio. The statue appears to have gained enough third-party notability to be notable. I'll add a few of these references to the article. --NellieBly (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NellieBly; GNG appears to be satisfied, prominent work by notable artist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I favor articles about public art works, and this one is fairly well referenced. It would be desirable to add information from references that discuss the artistic merits and cultural significance of the sculpture. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – ColtsScore (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, I think it needs to be renamed. I know this isn't the exact right place to raise this, but may as well since its visible at the moment. I would suggest Alexander Pushkin (Bourganov statue). Ravendrop 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Notability not established, and no consensus in favor of keeping it on the presumption of notability at this time. Find sources and we'll talk. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Tasek

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

Non notable business/location. Promotional wording. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable mall; I couldn't find any reliable 3rd-party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but I'm inclined to think a 5-storey mall would be notable in most parts of the world, and that sources probably do exist if only in Malaysian papers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though readily available sourcing is limited, there are indications this is sufficiently notable for inclusion. If anyone has free online access to archives of Malay Mail, etc., that might help.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MassResistance#"Fistgate". We can of course have neutral articles on notable fringe theories. This one, however, fails WP:EVENT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fistgate

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

The fistgate article serves only to accuse President Obama's openly gay Kevin Jennings of being associated with a sexual practice using unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all; also "fistgate" is almost solely used by conservative activist bloggers. The short version is that in 2000 an activist from Mass Resistance illegally taped a health/sex education conference workshop that was co-sponsored by Jennings' group GLSEN (they did not approve information that was not age-appropriate and had nothing to do with the session which was run by State health educators). Despite a court injunction against releasing the recording, the activists did so, held a press conference and a talk show aired parts of the tape including someone (who may have been a plant) asking about fisting. This was re-dug up a decade later after President Obama announced he was appointing Kevin Jennings to the US Department of Education in 2009 and rebranded as fistgate by those opposed to Obama, Jennings or both.

[98] Media Matters, who have debunked a lot of similar claims, saidThe latest charges, which highlighted the creepy right-wing fascination with gay sex, were rolled over days and presented as the ultimate take-down of Jennings. But alas, the serious press has been singularly uninterested in the story. A check of Nexis shows not one serious national news outlet picked up the story this week, despite the fact that right-wingers, led by Andrew Breitbart, hailed it as a sensational blockbuster.

I think it's essentially a tranparent and slanderous smear being legitimized by Wikipedia. I started to fix the article but there is very little to support it existing at all. Haley 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep This topic is in fact covered in multiple sources and is notable, MMfA notwithstanding. Oddly the article doesn't even mention Jennings, which seems to be your point of contention. Anyway we don't delete articles because they are conservative, or liberal, WP is not censored. For a left-wing example of this see Santorum_(sexual_neologism) Lionel (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lionel, look at the sources for Santorum_(sexual_neologism): Philadelphia Inquirer, Slate, National Review, Roll Call. Hell, you can't even google Santorum's name without getting a lot of hits related to the, um, fluid. It's clearly notable. This clearly isn't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MassRessistance, Mass "News" and other activist blogs are not reliable and have been shown to be lying. The only reason this 2000 incident was recirculated and called Fistgate was because Jennings was appointed by Obama and as mentioned above some people simply wanted to discredit either or maybe both. Even though the present article doesn't name Jennings the underlying legitimizing of muckraking is still going on. After I eliminated all the blogs and Morman, Catholic and Christian "news" sites (hint - if they refer to homosexuals recruiting children they are undoubtably an unreliable source) I find no sources that could be used. I'm sure there is something somewhere that is reliable but could you present anything useful?Haley 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on all kinds of notable fringe theories here on Wikipedia. The idea is not to put our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist; the idea is to present neutral information about them, complete with references to third-party reliable sources. If reliable third parties state that Fistgate is a fringe theory, then edit the article to say so. If the vast majority of reliable sources state this is a fringe theory, then we report that too, as we don't give undue bias to fringe theorists (e.g. we don't give equal representation to proponents and debunkers of the supposedly psychic act of spoon bending, as all reliable sources state it is prestidigitation and not a psychic act). --NellieBly (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're right, Nellie, that we have articles on all sorts of notable fringe theories here, but nothing in this article establishes that this is notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any third-party reliable sources and the entire article is not presented neutrally and I don't think it can as this was one group's attempt to discredit the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which Jennings was instrumental in setting up. The real story is that there isn't much of a story and fistgate sounds horrible but lacks evidence from credible sources.Haley 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no place on Wikipedia, except in the hearts and minds of anti-gay conservatives. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - The only thing established by reliable sources in this article is that MassResistance is a hate group. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article. Also there are many living people mentioned in this article. None of the facts alleged about them are reliably sourced, which brings up obvious BLP concerns. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move? I'm not sure this warrants a stand-alone article, but it might be a suitable section of an article on controversies surrounding sex ed in the schools. (We had an uproar just last year about a school presentation by Planned Parenthood.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe, but you still need some reliable sources to support whatever you put in this hypothetical suitable section. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the original version.[99] including the gem The term quickly became a general term for any outrageous activities in the sexual education field in Massachusetts, such as a Newton High School Health Class's requirement that ninth grade girls go to the drug store, buy condoms, and practice putting them on bannanas. This was sourced to About.com.

The only reference that looked good was to Bay Windows but the link is to a news sales service. The original "article" is actually an opinion piece which says nothing about what it's suppose to be sourcing and instead states rather boldly -
Gay activists should be aware of the history of the right-wing campus group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) infiltrating gay speakers’ presentations to ask embarrassing questions, especially about "fisting." As a founder of campus groups at Arizona State, Long Beach State and UCLA in the ’70s, our speakers were constantly confronted by YAFFERs posing as students who seemed obsessed with exposing fisting practices. At conferences we discovered that this was a national project of these Hitler Youth, one of many dirty tricks that date back to Watergate trickster Donald Segretti’s leadership of the YAF.
We already know that a right-wing operative had infiltrated the GLSEN Tufts Conference in order to tape record potentially embarrassing discussion. That some of the questions could also have been plants is entirely possible, especially given a past history of exactly these kinds of tricks.
Incidentally, today Roger Hedgecock is broadcasting the GLSEN tapes on the national radio program "Weekend" from the Republican National Convention. I was able to call in just before the tape was played to raise these doubts and clarify that the Massachusetts GLSEN program was founded with support from Republican governors to provide remediation for the high rate of gay youths’ suicide, and that the distinguished GLAD advocates secured an injunction to protect the privacy of those taped after the tapes were distributed to the media by right wing operatives.

I think editorial pieces can be used judiciously but what was put in the article doesn't match the source in any way whatsoever.Haley 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT: it got coverage in reliable sources when it happened, but not very much, and hasn't received any since. Not a notable event. (If kept, however, a better name must be found - this isn't, say, "Rubygate" where reliable news media use the term, it's something invented by one side to make it sound scandalous and used only by them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a single event, but a drawn out set of circumstances. There is the event at the meeting that sparked the initial outrage, but there is the later outrage over the attempt by a judge to supress any knowledge of the matter and Nat Hentoff's attempts to get jail time in protest against the judge's heavy handedness. This article was not created to attack any Obama appointees, I know, I created it. Personally I find the action of the judge to be a much more important issue than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an event took place over several months doesn't exempt it from WP:EVENT. The event is over. No lasting significance has been demonstrated. Heck, no one's demonstrated that it was significant when it happened. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Roscelese & Steven J. Anderson: minor event that has sufficient coverage in MassResistance. AV3000 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this argument we should not delete, we should change this article to a redirect to the MassResistance article. I also would like to point out this whole incident was heavily covered by MassResistence figures in the wake of the appointment of Paul Colccelli as a US ambassador by George W. Bush. It has a long history of being brought up when people with any connection to it have a chance of public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MassResistance is not a reliable source for the purposes of attesting notability, nor indeed for anything except statements about their own organization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources Found these with a quick google search: [100], [101], [102] (with attribution this is WP:RS), [103] & [104] (these blogs pass WP:SPS), [105], [106], and MassResistance is reliable about it's involvement in the event.Lionel (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yes, WorldNetDaily, GatewayPundit, Emmaus Ministries, and WashTimes opinion pieces are totally reliable sources. The others don't mention this incident, so I don't know why you're linking them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Herald [107], Weekly Standard [108] (reprinted w/permission) Lionel (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So another far-right opinion piece, and an article from when the event happened that naturally doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT? You're not doing very well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosceles, sould you accept an opinion piece from the New York Times as a legitimate source. If yes than you need to also accept Opinion pieces from the Washington Times. Anything else would be biased acceptance of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing to hear you speak of the WashTimes and the NYTimes as equivalents in terms of quality and journalistic integrity, but that isn't really relevant; opinion pieces aren't good indicators of notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least pretend to be looking for liberal or pro-gay sites that mention the event. I know they did, because that's how I heard about when it got brought up to use against Obama. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am just following the lead of Dr. John McCurdy, and he has a Ph.D. and is not considered a conservative extremist by anyone. I would actual argue the opposite, that being covered in an opinion piece is a clear indication that a thing is notable than coverage in the regular news section. This seems the case based on the balance of material in news sections and opinion pieces. My last comment was meant as a response to Roscelese's first response. I am now going to critique her second response. Fistgate occured in March 2000. There was a suit against the father who recorded the conversation as early as the very start of April 2000. The Boston Globe article Lionel linked to is from May of 2000, which is getting us over a month after the initial event. The Weekly Standard, which is published 48 times a year, ran an article on the matter in its July 2000 issue, that is over 3 months after the story first breaks. It is a bit much to call an article on something three months after the fact an article "at the time of the event" that includes the citation of rules about events that are only covered in news media when they happened. This would be like arguing that a mention today in a news magazine of the change of government in Egypt shows that it was only an event of temporary note because it is still at the time of the stepping down of Mubarak. There may be some validity to this view, but we have to be open and honest that we are dealing with several months. Whatever else the Weekly Standard is, it does not fit in the normal definition of "far right". Right yes, but modifying that with "far" would be questioned by most people. The Boston Globe is not right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed before, but in reading through some of the discussion noticed the mention that Jennings in not mentioned in the article. A review of the article confirms this is true. This article does not mention Jennings. The fact that the delete argument staarts with the assertion "this articles only purpose is to smear Jennings" should cause people to ask why such a claim is made when Mr. Jennings is never mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The delete nomination seems to be spured by both a desire to censor wikipedia for a specific political purpose and extreme presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the nominator speak for hirself, but you seem to be complaining that Wikipedia bases itself on verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, rather than about a specific problem with this nomination. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does not question whether there are sources that support this, the question is focused on sources post-2008 as opposed to in 2000. There are sources, like the Weekly Standard that are mentioned in the references listing at the bottom of the article. The argument centers around the line "the only reason why people to day would note this is to attack Jennings", yet as I have said this is notable for the various actions of the judge involved in the suit, which does not involve Jennings at all. The NPOV position is a hard sell, because the nomination essentially is "this is detrimental information about someone, we should therefore delete it". That is not a NPOV view at all. There is also a general dismissiveness towards the views of those who disagree with them on the part of some who favor deletion that is very disturbing. To laugh at people for holding a different view than you is the epitome of rudeness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator observes that the article is sourced to "unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all" and that the term does not appear in reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability restrictions already prohibit us from adding information that lacks reliable sourcing; when it's about living people, the requirements are even more stringent (information that cannot be reliably sourced must be removed immediately). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absoltely dispute there are enough reliable sources for this. Have we found one reliable source yet that calls this fabricated crisis "fistgate?" And though the article doesn't name Jennings the underlying legitimizing of muckraking of him and Obama is still happening.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (update: and merge) to MassResistance#"Fistgate", as suggested above. It's already included in that article, and this way if anyone does search for the term, they can be taken to that section directly. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that article is much better at all. Most of that material is also bias and almost entirely unsourced when looked at. The only source that looks valid is

Critics contend safe-sex forum far too graphic which is used to only to source Scott Whiteman, a MassResistance member, "secretly recorded the workshop."" That source doesn't actually say that but comes close enough. However the main points of that article being used misses:

1. "Fistgate" is never used, neither is fisting.
2. "The conservative group is using this incident to call for the state to stop funding gay and lesbian programs in public schools. "The Department of Education works hand in hand with GLSEN," Whiteman said. "We believe the only way to stop this, is to stop all funding for GLSEN.""
3. Parents Rights Coalition president Brian Kamenker has already garnered suport by airing portions of the tape on a local talk radio station. A transcript of the tape was also put out on the Internet last week, and he is now selling taped copies of the conference for $5 each. In other words a question/answer session of minors asking sexuality questions was illegally taped by this group who went on to sell the tapes all in an effort to shut down funding for GLSEN, which is Jennings group.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect is what I believe you mean to suggest, and I would support a merge with MassResistance#"Fistgate" while redirecting the current article there.AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion argument involves a lot of insinuation of intent on the part of those who created the argument. It also involves a large amount of attack on the "original article" as opposed to the article as it currently stands. I would say that that is not the right way to go about this. However the attack on the original article did cause me to remember why I created the article. I was researching about John Silber and found a mention to his stand about curriculum at BUA that used the workd fistgate. I then did a wikipedia search for the term and came up with nothing. In my more general search I came across references the judge trying to surpress the tapes, and this caused me to feel it was a case that desereved to have the light of day shed on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator for deletion would have been wise to check the history of this article. It was first created on October 23rd, 2008. That is before Barack Obama had been elected president of the United States. It is hard to see how an article created at that time could have had the primary goal of discrediting an Obama nominee, when Obama had not nominated anyone yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake, it was created ten days before the Presidential election, this is the point, it was to discredit people associated by implication and the entire incident is presented as scandal and the are almost no reliable sources for it. Here[109] is an article from May 2008 showing Jennings as a prominent gay rights activist raising funds and newly supporting Obama. Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However the article has never mentioned anything about Jennings. You are the one who keeps claiming it is some how meant to discredit him, when it has never mentioned him at all. Your unwillingness to believe that the creator of the article knew the reason for its creation is also disturbing. It was not created in light of the upcoming election, it was created, as I said before, as an outgrowth of the study of the life and work of John Silber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Silber article - In 2002, Silber ordered that a B.U.-affiliated high school academy disband its gay-straight alliance, a student club that staged demonstrations to publicize the deleterious effects of homophobia. Silber dismissed the stated purpose of the club -- to serve as a support group for gay students and to promote tolerance and understanding between gay and straight students -- accusing the club of being a vehicle for "homosexual recruitment." Silber denounced the group for "evangelism" and "homosexual militancy" with the purpose of promoting gay sex. Yikes. Regardless of the motive behind the article's timing with the presidential election, or if it specifically names Obama, Jennings, and even GLSEN, this non-controversies' screeded as Fistgate seems pretty transparent as some platform and political smear tactic. (see October surprise.Haley 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SCANDAL is a good reminder of Wikipedia is not for, namely, scandal mongering, which is mostly what we have here. I'm not seeing the reliable neutral sources, and what sets scandal mongering apart from good, Wikipedia-ready verifiability is fair, balanced coverage. Even if this were to be kept, I agree with what Roscelese said above, which is that the name "Fistgate" would be an improper and non-neutral article name. However, as I explained, I do favor deletion. Kansan (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor event covered elsewhere. I also agree with Kansan above. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the MassResistance article. Too trivial for a standardalone article, and the action was driven by the group, so leave coverage there, where it exists anyway. Rd232 ^talk 08:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is almost as bad as this one with reliable sources missing and neutrality being the main issues.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor, local drama, not a significant or notable event that received much coverage in the outside world. OpEds, blogs, and hate sites do not establish notability. We should also avoid naming articles with the "-gate" snowclone whenever possible, but since this is such a WP:GNG and WP:EVENT fail, that's a secondary concern. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MassResistance article. Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, borderline WP:SCANDAL which may actually dictate deletion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't see any sourcing there to support this either. I guess that's the main problem, no reliable sources call this fistgate and this was never a big issue to anyone but MassResistance to begin with. The most polite way I can say it is that the group are extreme activists whose goal is stated to shut down supportive programs for lesbian and gay kids that prevent suicides and disease. If you combine everything from these articles and then look at what solid sourcing is available almost nothing holds up. This was one of several smear campaigns trying to accuse Kevin Jennings of pedophilia and recruiting children which are tired old myths against gay people that are recycled by anti-gay groups. If there is solid sourcing I wouldn't care if the content was neutrally presented, there just isn't much at all.Haley 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this topic satisfies WP:GNG or any alternative notability rules. I could find no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. In addition, titles with "-gate" are often not appropriate. For a long time WP:Article title had Attorneygate as an example of a title that we are specifically not using. (The passage was removed from the policy [110], but that was in the course of cleaning up the presentation, not because anyone disagreed.) In fact, most articles linked from List of scandals with "-gate" suffix are under more neutral titles. Hans Adler 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, not notable. I also concur with WP:SCANDAL comments made above. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local kerfuffle that doesn't establish long-term notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:EVENT, WP:SCANDAL. Like other editors, I'm curling my lip at the paucity of sources that (a) describe the subject in "significant detail" and (b) are [[WP:RS|reliable sources with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." I want rather more than bloggers and fringe "news" sites, please. Ravenswing 17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly Standard is not a fringe news site. Whether the reference there establishes the issue is another question, but it is not a "fringe" news site. Also, there was no implication of Jennings as an Obama appointee in October of 2008 so the purpose of the article was not to discredit Obama or his appointees. The purpose of the article was the created needed coverage for a case that went to the courts. Nat Hentoff is no right winger, so his involvement in covering the developments of this story complicates the whole matter. He may be fringe in that he really believes in civil liberties, instead of only supporting them when they are used to benefit those whose policies he agrees with, but he is no right winger. The whole delete nomination seems to be motivated by a desire to suppress information that is seen to be embarrasing and that some parties would rather be entirely forgotten. There is also the factor that the full nature of the charges involved is normally skirted around outside of allegedly "fringe" publications, because outside of these "fringe" publications explicit references to sexual acts as would happen if this was brought up in full is censored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's some more, from October 2008, another "news" source identifying Jennings as "GLSEN's founder Kevin Jennings happens to be a prominent fundraiser in the LGBT community for the Obama campaign." Also from October[111] denoting the 10-year anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's murder - Jennings is quoted ""It's homophobia. A lot of people want to deny that there are LGBT students." The article goes on to include Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama released the following statement to mark the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death. The campaign for GOP nominee Sen. John McCain did not release a statement. - "In the ten years since Matthew's passing, Congress has repeatedly and unacceptably failed to enact a federal hate crimes law that would protect all LGBT Americans. That's not just a failure to honor Matthew's memory; it's a failure to deliver justice for all who have been victimized by hate crimes, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All Americans deserve to live their lives free of fear, and as Americans, it is our moral obligation to stand up against bigotry and strive for equality for all." That last part is a shot across conservatives' ship that gay marriage will be supported by Obama, certainly more than any Republicans would ever want. Going back to January 2008, Jennings is shown to be high profile enough to be figured into which democratic campaigns have LGBT support, "Edwards has the support of longtime Democratic activist David Mixner and youth advocate Kevin Jennings." In November 2008 Jennings is shown to be the architect of a "Bullies-Free Zone" for the Chicago schools who notes Obama would likely tap the schools' chief Arne Duncan as Education Secretary (which he did).Haley 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haley, you are still failing to pay close attention to the most important factor in history, that events can not be influenced by things in the future. If something is written in October 2008, than an article published in November of 2008 has no relevance to it. You say this is a "non-controversy". Since it is clear that different people have differnt views about the events described, it is by definition a controversy. Why you are bombarding us with pro-Jennings propaganda is beyond me, but it has no relevance to whether or not this article should be included. The article should stand on its own merits, not the good or ill of people who headed organizations mentioned in the aritcle. It has taken me a great deal of restraint to engage in pointing out the logical fallacy in using someone whose murderers both got life sentances as a cause celebre to push for tougher laws.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I can be any clearer, please present reliable sources. This entire episode was fabricated to bring disrespect to Jennings, that's rather obvious as ll roads lead there, he's the country's authority on anti-gay bullying and he has been for years in Massachusetts. And Matthew Shepherds murder is a textbook example of why hate crimes against anyone need specific and tougher laws. When you attack a minority person it affects other people in that minority group. But let's save that discussion for some other time. Haley 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama, Jennnings, Matthew Shepherd, bullying, are not mentioned in the article and your off-topic diatribes are becoming taxing. If you continue pushing your personal views and theories in this forum your comments will be collapsed. And I tell you one more thing: as a non-white minority person you certainly do not speak for me and I do not subscribe to your tribal us-against-them mentality. WP is not the place for this. Lionel (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The connections of the subject to Jennings, who is the authority on bullying and works for Obama are pretty clear and I've tried to explain these on-topic points as best as possible. I never thought I spoke for anyone but myself and if you are offended I apologize. Ironically this is the point of why this article is such a problem - it's completely pushing personal views and theories. The battleground was done when the MassResistance guy illegally taped a safe space question and answer session and then sold copies despite a court order not to. I believe reliable sources should speak for themselves and if a group is reliably called a hate group then it is whitewashing to leave that out. We may have to just agree not to agree and I'm not here to win anyone to my views.Haley 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haley, I do strongly support deletion here, but any Obama connection or the reasoning behind the article creation isn't really relevant here - the issues here relate to notability so it's probably best to leave speculation as to said reasoning out of this debate. If, hypothetically, Wikipedia were brand new again and somebody with a strong political point of view against Bill Clinton created Monica Lewinsky, she would be notable regardless of why the article was created. I maintain that, regardless of why this page was created, it's not notable. Kansan (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I also realize that any explanation given probably isn't going to sway them. I'll try to step back and see where it all goes.Haley 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SCANDAL and WP:EVENT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable attack meme per WP:SCANDAL and WP:EVENT. Edison (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only POV-pushing sources are available; no careful, neutral analyses. This topic is not yet encyclopedic in scope. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a big deal in Mass, it seems notable enough for an article. - Haymaker (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was? This Bostonian political science wonk barely heard of it at the time. Just another 24-hour news cycle blip. Ravenswing 05:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also from Boston. Remember the incident. Came and went as a story. No one used the term. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kansan and others above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A manufactured scandal that never caught on. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:EVENT, WP:SCANDAL, WP:RS, and other alphabet soup. There's not really enough material here to merge. PhGustaf (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or Redirect to MassResistance as per Aristophanes68's comment below Pburka (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If we delete this page, do we redirect it to the MassResistance article, since the same material is mentioned there as well? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope we don't. The issue has been that no reliable sources even use the term and the term itself is synonymous with that group only to a very small subset of "extremist conservatives" in the state. The term is invented and hardly used. I don't think we should give it any credibility. Haley 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then remove the material from the MassResistance page as well? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something to be discussed in the edit cycle for MassResistance. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. There is really little to no consensus for such a merger. Kansan (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Custom House Conspiracy

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

Non-notable book added probably added by book's author; advertisement TuckerResearch (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Can find no coverage or reviews of this book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Novaseminary (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book is self-published. Self-published books are rarely notable. I'm not seeing any third-party reviews or notice even in local newspapers. --NellieBly (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find any third-party coverage of this book at all. 28bytes (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Ciccone

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see nothing of notability - Google doesn't even appear to have heard of the "Lord of Creymore". (And those blued-by-hand bits are a little bizarre - I think I might change them to Wikilinks so we can see which are genuinely blue and which are red) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete I have made the suitable amendments to the article. I hope it now falls in line with the wilkipedia guidelines. Grant Ciccone (talk) (Note: This comment was made by user 193.132.237.3 , and this is his real talk page; what looks like a link to his talk page here is actually just a link to the word "talk".)

Comment – The article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO. Specifically, it fails to provide any Wikipedia defined notability using independent, verifable, reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, sorry - the recent changes still don't satisfy the WP:BIO notability requirements. None of the references properly references anything, and it looks like they're referring to things the subject has written - we need references to independent sources that talk *about* the subject, in some depth. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to "Lord Creymore" (not "Lord of Creymore") [112] just says he claimed the title on March 12. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but there is simply not enough information out there to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I found a few hits at Google News Archive, but all of them are from 2006 when he apparently, briefly became the poster boy for nurses who can't find work as nurses. No news about his current occupations or activities (or titles). No publications at all found at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The talk page at User talk:GCiccone implies that this article may have been speedy-deleted one or more times in the past. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability provided by 3rd party sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability or nobility. I suspect the "Lord of the Manor of Creymore" is somebody buying an old manor house and assuming the title of Lord of the Manor, which connotes about as much notability as if I called myself the Duchess of Ragged Ass Road because I used to live there. --NellieBly (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the third-party coverage I've found (basically the same things MelanieN found above) don't seem significant enough to establish notability. 28bytes (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 12:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Snyder

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

This article had been tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G11; I declined the speedy because the page does not look unambiguously and exclusively promotional. But due to the rationale given for the speedy tag per the respective edit summary in the article's revision history, I felt that I should take this article to AfD for discussion. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created by NMS Bill, a now-inactive editor who discloses that Pete Snyder is his employer. Of the sources cited, the few reputable third-party ones substantiate an article about Snyder's company, not the man himself. Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just following up on the note above, I think a valid point is made regarding the sourcing. The article is not quite up-to-date, and as a result it happens to omit multiple reliable sources which have published articles primarily about the individual. These sources should be of help in properly establishing Notability:

The Washington Post (Aug. 2008) (similar version published in print edition)
Washingtonian Magazine (Oct. 2006)
Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile (listed under key executives of Meredith Corp)
Washington Life Magazine (May 2010)
TV News Check (Nov. 2010)
The New York Times (in brief, Nov. 2010)
US News & World Report (July 2010)
Media Bistro (Nov. 2010)

I would update the article with some of these sources (the Washington Post article is most relevant in establishing WP:N); however in seeking to best uphold Wikipedia's COI policies (the subject of the article is the president of my present employer) I felt it ideal to leave such decisions up to others independent of the subject. On the same accord, I leave this as a comment instead of a keep/delete. Hope that this additional information and context is helpful and constructive in evaluating the article at hand. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- References provided show longterm coverage by broad major WP:RS with little overlap of content, some understandably longer than others; establishes WP:N. Dru of Id (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources provided by Jeff if an appropriate selection are added to the article. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some of the article have passing mentions, such as this brief mention, but overall I think there's enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Strauss

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This person isn't notable and I see other editors keep adding text without sources. Album covers are also being added as images and I don't see any "ticket" that allows this??? PlusPlusDave (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources found in previous AFD indicate he is notable, so anything else is really an article clean up issue. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you refer to, Whpq, are very week indeed. I did a Google News Archive search and found 13 passing references. That doesn't really indicate notability by any stretch of the imagination. ++DAVE PlusPlusDave (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt they are the same results I found. They are all from the Jerusalem Post behind pay walls, but then he is an Israeli musician. [113] woudl appear to feature him as the primary subject. The abstract lists it at 442 words which is not a passing mention. This review of his work is again appears to feature him as the primary topic and is 365 words. I am not convinced that everything in the search results are mere passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitly keep for now (again!).. per Whpq.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a lot of coverage provided in both afds. Whilst most is local coverage from Jerusalem Post (one source) the article linked above shows that there has been international coverage in in the American Guitar Player magazine. (and having read the full Jerusalem Post article linked above he is the primary subject.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Sculpture

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

Non-notable company. Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find much in the way of reliable sourcing, doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article suggests that this company is tangentially related to some artists who may be doing something notability but I am finding no claim in the article which would indicate notability for the article's subject. Beyond that, I am not finding anything in Google which would indicate this company's notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Police (film)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mumbai Police (film) (2nd nomination)

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

The article is about a film that has not started production. Nominating for deletion per WP:NFF. Arfaz (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete production hasnt started yet Bob House 884 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see the first nomination. Salih (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep as a disambiguation page; User:Cnilep has taken care of doing that. Mandsford 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knaggs

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

No significant secondary source coverage established in article, and no apparent significant mention in any other sources. Seems to fail WP:GNG.

Comment The article survived a previous call for deletion some 6.5 years ago. Certainly it doesn't pass WP:RS. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This was discussed for deletion back in 2004 - and passed. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More accurately, it was closed as "no consensus". Consensus can change over 6 years. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but convert to a {{Surname}} DAB, as suggested by Mjroots. Cnilep (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knaggs (2nd nomination) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed that discussion page and left a link to here, luckily there were no comments on that page anyway. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert into a DAB page as suggested by Mjroots. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have converted the page to a DAB. That appears to be the drift of this discussion, but of course I am biased, having recommended such action myself. Cnilep (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Medallion Shield Final

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

This article about an individual final in a schools rugby competition fails to meet notability guidlines. Article lacks content of note to merit a separate article and the subject matter is covered adequately in the main competition article at Medallion Shield. Weejack48 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a game between two secondayr schools. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Momma. Calls to expand this article beyond a mash of the film articles have not been met. Jujutacular ^talk 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mommas (film series)

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

This new article is just a synthesis of the three articles about the individual films. There are other "(film series)" articles that are very good and add information about the subject, but this is not one of those. It is a pointless stub. Spidey104 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the same article under a different name (Big Momma's House films) was already speedily deleted. The creator of both articles is the same. Perhaps a warning is in order for him? This editor only seems to create pointless articles that are eventually deleted. Spidey104 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I remember, this article is more extensive than Big Momma's House films (and {{Big Momma's House}}) but it still contains nothing that isn't already adequately, and encyclopaedically, covered in the film articles. I agree with Spidey, the editor does need a warning, not only for creating articles and templates such as this but for most of his edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why would it not be possible to have a film series article here? It seems to me that the article is underdeveloped. Like other film series articles, we can include aggregate box office figures and critics' scores. In addition, I'm sure that it's possible to examine the third film's reviews to see how critics compared it to previous films. We may even be able to identify a critic that has reviewed all three films and put together all of his or her reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable film series can have its own article. More information can be added. No article is created 100% complete straight away. Dream Focus 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What other information could be added to this article that doesn't simply duplicate content already covered in the individual film articles? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information about the individual films in a series that is already covered adequately in the individual articles, with so real coverage given to the series as a whole. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough to be retained. The article includes gists of plots from all the three movies. If this article has to go, then so should other articles on film series. I find no reason for it to be deleted. Perhaps it should be renamed as Big Momma's House (film series) and of course requires some expansion. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The films may be notable, but what makes this unreferenced article that simply duplicates the content from the three movie articles notable? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a pointless duplication of the individual articles. Mtking (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is a pointless duplication of the individual articles, then so are the articles on other film series and if this article has to go, so should the others. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that then nominate them separately as they're not relevant to this AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that, while there are sources for the individual movies, there don't seem to be sources here covering the series as a whole. This article can not exist if it is simply a mish mash of info in other articles; it needs its own sources to prove its notability, and without this all of the keep votes asserting it's notability are invalid. But even if sources were found for this, this article would still simply be a synthesis of the smaller articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I was about to close this, but then saw Yaksar's comment at the end. Others probably have not yet had time to discuss this issue, so I am relisting it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's not much, but there is one book in print, Emily Fox-Kales, Body Shots: Hollywood and the Culture of Eating Disorders (2011), p. 154, that references the "Big Momma's House series" as "representations of the big black woman that have appeared in mass marketed comedies" which at the same time devalue the women by casting "male actors wearing Latex fat suits". Also, there is this rather scathing review, Stuart Heritage, Big Momma's House 3: once, twice, three times a fake lady, at guardian.co.uk (Nov 10, 2010). Although it is a puff piece and reads like a blog, it comes from a contributor who was paid to write it (for what that's worth), and says that "Believe it or not, the Big Momma's House series rigidly follows the classic Hollywood trilogy structure". In particular, if there are any discrepancies between the films, or cross-film character arcs, this is the place for them. bd2412 T 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment/Temporary Keep: I would be fine with a Keep for right now. However, the editors that said it should and could be expanded need to be the ones who do the expansion. If this article does not get expanded to the point where it is a proper article within a reasonable amount of time I will renominate it for deletion, because if the people who say it can be expanded are unable to expand it then no one else can (or will). Spidey104 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs often generate cleanups and expansion of articles during the AfD with little work afterwards. While it wasn't my intention when nominating it, there was a huge change to List of teen films between when I nominated it[114] and when the AfD closed.[115][116] By compariosn, this article has seen only this and not a single reference has been added. The likelihood, if we use "List of teen films" as an example[117] is that we'll be back here again. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a catch 22 involved here. I am not going to put much work into an article that stands to be deleted. If it is kept, I'll work on it. bd2412 T 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    - I take that back, I've added the above references to the article, along with a box office table (which demonstrates the decline in popularity as the series ages), and done some general clean-up. If it is kept, I'll do more. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete The topic of the series is justified and notable, but there's no content in this article that's not just a paste from the individual film articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Even if the article is hash, it should still be kept as a list or disam to link to the films in the seriesPurpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Redirect to Big Momma...I said we needed a disambiguation page, and it looks like we've already got one Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per purplebackpack89.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack is now a redirect, since his or her rationale did not take into account the already existing disambig page, although he or she has now accounted for it. Do you still agree?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite additional content added since then, Yaksar's comments of March 29 are still valid. The article is still just a mash of content from the three film articles. Only the last part of the article is referenced, the three references added referring to box office figures that should be in the individual film articles and two comments from reviewers, again which should be in the individual articles. The only original content is a table comparing the box office figures and that really doesn't justify a separate article. I'd like to know Purplebackpack89's rationale behind the claim that the article should be kept as a list or a disambiguation page. None was supplied so it's unconvincing. Perhaps BabbaQ can explain, because I can't. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I though my rationale for keeping it was pretty clear...you need an article on the franchise as a parent article to the article on each film. This is the way it is dealt with in most other franchises. How would you solve the problem of linking from one film to the others? I see the problem with this page is not the notability of the subject, but the quality of content, namely that it was copied from elsewhere. I'm not defending the current content there. When I said "make it a list or disambiguation page", I meant completely refactoring what's there (the current page is obviously not a list or dab), similar to List of Conan O'Brien sketches. Something on the lines of, "Big Momma's are a series of three films written by Don Rhymer and starring Martin Laurence. These films are...", and then bullet them off with dates of production and links to each article. Would that not be acceptable? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here though, is much different. Lots of different people could search "List of Conan O'Brien Sketches" looking for one of those specific articles. No one is going to search for "Big Mommas (film series)" looking for one of the specific movies. On a total side note, I don't think the series is referred to anywhere as the Big Mommas series (indeed its weird to label it by the least memorable third film) and some sources refer to the "Big Momma's House series", so a move is probably in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, readers are more likely to search for Big Momma, which is already a disambiguation page for the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hajimete no aku

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

Search for reliable, third-party sources comes up with nothing. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 17:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of sourcing to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Days Gone By

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

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. HrZ (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's confirmed that it will be the new single. It does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as there is a reliable source provided. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting People

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

WP:PROMO by Shootingpeople (talk · contribs) and Jesssearch (talk · contribs). Notability per WP:NMEDIA is questionable. bender235 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independent sources are included in the article to demonstrate that it satisfies WP:ORG, so it does not seem to be notable enough for an article. No reference is included for the claim "It was used to help make films including Oscar-nominated short film Little Terrorist," which still seems to fall afoul of "Notability is not inherited." Edison (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Note that the article is about a network for independent filmmakers. And I was so hoping it would turn out to be a how-to article, but nooooooo...... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzo (magician)

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

Non-notable magician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. -- Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it disturbing that I am constantly having to deal with complaints/notes/amendments to articles without any further substance outside of the tag itself.

In this case I have already stated why the person is important and why there are few articles of note to add citations.

In short, I am a little annoyed that the only measure of a mans' life is now reduced to how many 'hits' he receives.

While avoiding libel etc is important a read of the article can clearly see nothing of the sort exists.

The internet is a collection of information distilled and resourced from real world sources. That something is not prevalent on the internet already seems hardly a justification that it has no merit or validity. kalchulainn

Comment – Sorry for your frustration, but Wikipedia is not about "real-world" notability or for that matter truth. It is about Wikipedia based notability and the ability to provide verifiable reliable sources to support notability. I am not sure why you bring up libel, not one is accusing the article of providing any such text. In addition, no one is indicating the subject of the article is not important, only that it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The criteria of notability is so open to subjective interpretation that I don't see the point in even bothering to discuss it. What is 'interesting' to one individual is boring to another. As such if the article is going to be deleted because of someone's whim then so be it. I would simply like to have some sort of actual reason, a well constructed reason, other than being referred to the vague ideas of 'notability'. Please don't think me harsh or angry, I am simply stating that my articles have been subjected to the 'drive-by' tagging. Each time I alone have started the 'talk page' to find out the precise issue or to offer clarification. Each time I am left with large tags and no response.

Tony you are the first person to actually try and discuss the articles.

As for the point about libel it simply states in tags that one of the reasons for citation is to avoid libel,etc. As the reasons behind the lack of notable references has been brought up by myself before I concluded that this might be one of the reasons the article is still tagged and was wondering why. It clearly has no slander/libel elements within it.

In general I can understand 'wiki -notability' but this leads us to an uncomfortable situation where people on the edges of arts and discoveries will be brushed over and any half-assed idiot from a reality tv show will qualify. Again it's all subjective, I simply feel wikipedia is a collective gathering of knowledge, some of which people may not have heard of before they went searching for it and should not start limiting itself to those who can get 15 seconds of limelight in the 'mainstream'.

When being drunk and obnoxious qualifies to be a 'wiki' entry and dedicating over 30 years of your life to an art-form is not I worry about what we are learning. — kalchulainn

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) 00:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One book which he coauthored is already a reference in the article, but therefore is not an "independent" source to support notability, though it can furnish details if notability is otherwise supported: [118]. Another book has substantial coverage, and specifically says he is or was a well known magician: [119] There are other Google News Archive hits for Gazzo magician but no assurance they refer to this particular "Gazzo." There are some false hits where the word "magician" and some other "Gazzo" show up, besides the ones pertaining to this person. Google News archive has no results for Gazzo Osborne magician, but several for Gazzo Macee magician (Macee is his adopted last name). This one in the LA Times is about this Gazzo, telling about him having a stroke while performing.The Boston Herald had coverage of him relocating, and mentioned his wife and child. This BBC article seems to be about him. The Toronto Star had some coverage. Thhe Stage had coverage. Seems enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This says Phantoms of the Card Table was Magic Week's Book of the Year 2003. Dru of Id (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Based on the subject and timeframe, he may also be the author of 2009 Gazzo on Cups and Balls, here. Dru of Id (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BettyConfidential

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

WP:PROMO by single-purpose account Lexi253 (talk · contribs). Not sure about the notability, but it definitely smells fishy. Does it meet WP:NMEDIA at all? bender235 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like it does meet standards for inclusion from WP:WEB, but it need a lot of cleanup. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does it meet WP:WEB? According to Alexa it only ranks #21,703 in the world (U.S. #6,524). --bender235 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as one of the criteria for WP:WEB is "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.", the site DID win an award for Editorial Excellence from minonline. Now I'm not sure of that being "well-known" but it does add to it's notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Wildthing, the site has won a major award, which is the standard. The article needs a complete re-write however, as it reads like a press release. Seaphoto^Talk 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy McCormick

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. According to the article her one role was as a minor character on Grange Hill which would not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR even if sources were found to verify the contents of the article. J04n(talk page) 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability tests for WP:Entertainer. The article may be recreated in the future is she has more notable roles. Pburka (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources sufficient to reliably verify or establish notability of this putative actress. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Young Democrats

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

Fails WP:ORG, with no references showing "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Warfieldian (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. The organization gets four pages of hits at Google News, so it gets a lot of press; however it's mostly passing mentions rather than significant in-depth coverage. It has existed for 40 years and has a large membership. We would normally merge an article about a local organization like this into its parent/national organization, but I could find no indication that the group is affiliated with the state or national Young Democrats, so a merge isn't appropriate. Overall I am leaning toward weak keep on this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Quite big organization; hope they could find more 3rd party sourcing. Smithsonian (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Lionel (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty much hardline for keeping information on all political parties and their youth sections, but this is a county level group and the page is little more than a mission statement and an officer roster, which puts it in typical Delete country... It would be an easier Keep call if there were a little Something Something about history and legacy. As it sits, I shed no tears if it disappears. It seems like most county level youth political organizations would get the axe, but Los Angeles is really big, thus a little bit of mulling is in order. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put "Los Angeles is really big" in context: if Los Angeles County were a state, it would be the 9th most populous state in the country. Or to put it another way, Los Angeles County is larger than 41 of the 50 states, each of which is entitled to have its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked again and couldn't find any significant independent coverage of this organization. Arguments based on size are not really the issue, WP:BIG. According to WP:ORG, "Notable is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." Warfieldian (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BIG is only a small part of an Essay. BIG might possibly need to be rewritten for clarity; actual WP notability Guidelines do concern themselves with geographical area; WP:POLITICIAN, for example, and MelanieN was responding to a concern based on that exact type of quantification, namely a local organization rather than a national one, as noted by Carrite. Anarchangel (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with any other AfD debate, the question is notability. This group has gotten extensive press coverage over the years, and while I can't find an actual article exclusively ABOUT the group (as is probably true of many such groups), their doings and positions and internal elections have been consistently reported in major newspapers. [120] [121] [122] [123] Unfortunately most of these are behind paywalls so they can't be cited, but I continue to think the group meets the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. Unless this local unit can pass WP:GNG, guideline prescribes that we follow this route, as far as I am aware. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as noted above, there is no state or national organization to merge with. Warfieldian (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parent organization would be Young Democrats of America as evident by here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All right, it's time for us to step up to the plate. The Google News hits mentioned above, primarily pay-per-view cites from the LA Times, indicate that this organization is probably of sufficient stature to merit encyclopedic coverage. Few other county-level youth sections of political parties would be. It's an abysmal article and a bad precedent, but it seems that this group slides over the notability bar for organizations. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not share Carrite's reservations as they are a concern of content, and therefore the talk page. Notability for the subject is established. Perhaps one day the forlorn and neglected WP:RFCs waiting for participants will instead be regularly reviewed and resolved by admins, and content can be added quickly and without edit warring. Or maybe that would just attract the power hungry dabblers who currently pursue dubious prestige by entering into the meta-game arena combat at AFD ANI etc. Anarchangel (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the notability of this article has been established by significant coverage that covers the 'subject directly in detail' with 'no original research' which is more than 'a trivial mention,' then please point to it so I can support keeping this article as notable. Warfieldian (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Helguera

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

Non notable person.Author (dubiously?) contested BLPPROD. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: This AfD was only listed in the AfD log on 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject might be notable, but the article needs serious work. If he really got the National Journalism Award as it claims, he might be notable. However, one of the years in which the article claims he got that award was 1966, when he was one year old! Someone who can read the Spanish sources needs to clean this article up to establish notability; otherwise it should probably be deleted as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to the subject's actual name, for which news and book searches find loads of coverage in independent relaible sources to substantiate notability: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added references to sources that verify everything in the article, addressing Melanie's concern. The first of the subject's awards was identified in the Spanish text as being in 1996, not 1966, so he isn't quite such a prodigy. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Phil Bridger's improvements, and move to Antonio Helguera. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a banker with a folk art hobby. There is no evidence of notability here. Gigs (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can't find any evidence of notability either. — anndelion (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability or coverage found by me. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway European Coachlines

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

Delete This page is about a local bus company. People would not look for it on the web and not on Wikipedia. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 12:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable corporation. MLA (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is lots of info on here includeding a link to a fleetlist website of galloways. WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD BUS PAGES. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: striking out blocked user's vote. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to strike out the nominator's rationale too? That user is also blocked. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been blocked. I was accusted of being a sock and was un-blocked because I was not. But Highhousefarm1 is still. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lacks third party coverage required for WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage for notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satisfies neither general, nor corporate notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Abrantee

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, created by single-purpose account Giverandnotataker (talk · contribs). Also recreation of Dj abrantee, speedy deleted on January 14, 2011, per WP:CSD#A7. I don't see any notability per WP:MUSICBIO. bender235 (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commmnt It seems that while DJ Abrantee does not have extensive coverage, he does have some minimal mention in sources, and we can source his awards and nominations. The BEFFTA (Black Entertainment, Film, Fashion, Television and Arts) Awards [124][125] and AMA (African Music Awards) [126] seem worth discussion in respects to WP:ANYBIO, as my initial observation shows an article created by someone who wishes to emulate other Wikipedia articles but who does not quite understand how its done and so is making the usual newb mistakes.... but style errors and lack of use of available sources are usually addressable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Notable Ghanaian musicians and djs in London are remarkably common yet this one has no notability. MLA (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the claim of notability is through the assertion of awards. While I agree that DJs are likely as common in London as anywhere, that "commonness" might make recognition through awards even more worth considering. A newcomer's article style and tone aside, this returns to my original observation: The BEFFTA (Black Entertainment, Film, Fashion, Television and Arts) Awards [127][128] and AMA (African Music Awards) [129] seem worth discussion in respects to WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far East Travel

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

Delete This page is about a local bus company. People would not look for it on the web and not on Wikipedia. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Delete. Google News hits are all false positives about travel in the Far East. Adding "Suffolk" draws a blank.[130] I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small company that fails WP:CORP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has lots of info about the company; A History section, There bus list. There route lists and a few pictures. WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD BUS PAGES. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bit of coverage in Buses Magazine, but nothing very in-depth. Someone said here that all scheduled bus operators are assumed notable. Is this written into policies or guidelines anywhere? If not, delete as failing WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satisfies neither general, nor corporate notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simonds of Botesdale

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

Delete This page is about a local bus company. People would not look for it on the web and not on Wikipedia. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much as I hate buses, this company operates scheduled bus routes in Norfolk and Suffolk. I believe that it therefore is notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD BUS PAGES. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! They are all notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Companies that operate scheduled public transport are generally considered notable because they generate enormous amounts of local third-party notice from reliable sources (including complaints in the local papers, but that's life). I've done a basic article cleanup. --NellieBly (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The nominator of the AFD and the keep !voter below are one in the same; that is, they are both Confirmed socks of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). Taking those socks away, there leave no consensus for deletion. There is no prejudice from renomination by a good faith user, however. –MuZemike 02:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nightingales of Beccles

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

Delete Nightingales is a small company and after the cuts it will loss nearly all it's routes. There is no need for a Wikipedia page about a local bus company. 21:01, 13 March 2011 Highhousefarm1.

Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 11:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has lots of brilliant info and the deleter failed to say what rules it broke to be deleted. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more evidence of notability than any of the other bus company articles nominated by Highhousefarm1. Pardon me, but I don't see any brilliant info on this page: all I see is unreferenced statememnts, writing in the second person, and informal bold formatting for no good reason. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 2 weeks with only one delete !vote aside from the nominator which is based on WP:NOEFFORT. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be WP:BOLD and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt gum

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

Non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article that originated two years ago as poorly written and has not improved since then. If no one steps forward during this AfD to improve the article, delete and wait for someone with an interest in the topic to come along and recreate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jolt Cola. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Tags

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

An application for the iPhone being blatantly advertised by its creator. Little independent evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional, notability concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am the creator of the app, but I did my best to offer a neutral point of view; please point me to the "blatant advertisement points" you mentioned as I tried to remove anything biased from the page, in some cases even going against my own believes. Any user is however welcomed to add her contributions having seen the web site or used the application, to foster this effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Please reviewers state clearly if the problem is for the creator of an object to create a page for the object: as in that case no editing of mine could obviously change the situation. Fbartolom (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the conflict of interest guidelines. This isn't a borderline case: it's blatant advertising as User:RHaworth points out in the nomination. The self-promotion policy states:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

This article is clearly a contravention of that policy. You state that you have done your best to offer a neutral point of view: that is good, but having a neutral point of view on something doesn't make it notable or non-promotional. The very existence of an article about a non-notable product makes it promotional.

We don't rule out articles on iOS applications: look at Angry Birds. The difference is things like iPhone apps only get included when they are notable. If your application becomes the next Angry Birds or Farmville or Doodle Jump, someone will make it a Wikipedia entry.

The article lacks good, independent reliable sources: a few reviews from blogs do not cut it for a Wikipedia article. Take a look again at the Angry Birds article: it has citations from The Guardian, Ha'aretz, Variety, Macworld, PCMag and so on. The combination of these issues taken together mean it is a pretty surefire delete. In fact, I'm surprised it got to AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if I had reviews from The Guardian, Ha'aretz, Variety, Macworld or PCMag I would be extremely quick to add them. Please also consider, though, that this application does not qualify as a game to throw birds around and click them that may attract even toddlers: rather it's the first example of a new paradigm that I am sure will develop greatly in the future - the web site hosts an article on the subject: in fact no one so far has made an application in which normal users may post their messages to be seen in augmented reality. You may check but there is nothing. Consequently something that is one-of-a-kind belongs more to a media trying to catch excellence than to a newspaper trying to catch readers! Fbartolom (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I already nominated this for deletion once under G11, which happened before this editor recreated the article. It's a clear COI and self-promotion article for a non-notable iOS app. Ignoring the COI and promotional issues, a review on "Slap Start" is not remotely close to grounds to establish notability. Zachlipton (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Reviews on "Killer Startups" and similar blogs do not make a case for notability. Obvious promotional insertion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, even in the small (but interesting) world of augmented reality, this is just another random app with no sources to speak of. - SudoGhost (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambadas Saidu Shinde

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

Poorly sourced BLP about an apparently non-notable teacher and self-described social activist. Article written by a family member. No independent sourcing; only sources mentioned are an alleged "autobiography" of unclear publication status; no inline refs and no indication of any outside coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from a few election results I can't find any coverage of this person. Fails WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. Search turns up little. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Graca

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

Appears to be a owner of a web design company. Company has different "little companies" or different "web front ends" that are targeted towards a different group. Article reads like a curriculum vitae. Majority of references link back to his company. Has done some videos that appear to be paid commercial spots. Editor of article has done only 4 edits, so maybe article is self written. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random guy who thinks we should host his resume for no apparent reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn? No, that's not reliable sources. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The About.com source looks good, but in general multiple sources are required. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High 5 Games (H5G)

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

No assertion of notability as it applies to Wikpedia's standing policies has been made. Just because a company exists, that does not necessarily confirm notability. Strikerforce (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should also be pointed out that the article was recreated after previously being deleted[131] (only thirty days ago) via CSD by an administrator who expressed concern that the article was being used purely as an advertisement. Strikerforce (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search[132] yields two results; one being the subject's company website (not acceptable as a reference) and an About.com article. In my opinion, that does not establish notability warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Facebook. If the article's author just wants to make sure that people "have access to knowledge about what this company is", (as they have written on the article's talk page) then I would suggest the creation of a Facebook page about the subject. To this point, nothing has been presented that justifies the subject having its own Wikipedia article. Strikerforce (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company IS one of the biggest casino game producers in the world -- not sure if anyone is disputing that fact. It seems to me that it is an omission by Wikipedia to have such gaming companies as International Game Technology, Bally Technologies, and PartyGaming, but not High 5 Games. The company has a number of mainstream popular games that have permeated pop culture -- just see one fan's Twitter page on H5G's Da Vinci Diamonds: http://twitter.com/#!/DaVinci_Diamond. Its games have also been on TV on Fox Business, according to its website. Not sure how high the threshold is for notability, but is it really less notable than any of the hundreds of other entries out there, including this one on a non-impressive 19th century cricket player: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Sugden ----mjspdr23

Now we're using Twitter as an argument for notability? You're not helping yourself here... and, by the way, your argument about the cricketer fails other stuff exists. Strikerforce (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I didn't make the twitter argument, but here is some substantial news coverage: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110110.NY26874&show_article=1 | http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/h5g-poised-to-become-njs-first-licensed-online-gaming-company-113242214.html. Nyulawschool (talk) Nyulawschool (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Both items provided are press releases issued by the company itself. Can't use 'em. Strikerforce (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your earlier response of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS critique is not enough. You need to do more work in actually establishing premises of your arguments rather than just asserting conclusions. If you read beyond the first paragraph of your link, you would see that in only the second paragraph:

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Why should wikipedia be inconsistent with what is a permissible gaming company page? Otherwise this whole project is merely arbitrary. Nyulawschool (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the talk page for the unwarranted accusations made by the user proposing the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_5_Games_%28H5G%29#Deletion_challenge There has never been a response to the company being relevant and notable in the gaming industry and current news. It's getting personal for some reason when the article merely adds to the wealth of information for Wikipedia users. Nyulawschool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see what's wrong with the About.com article by Bill Burton as a source. Marasmusine (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my commentary above, I don't think that is enough to establish notability. That is essentially a blog post and blogs are typically not reliable sources.--Strikerforce (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are typically not acceptable because they are self-published sources. If it can be shown that Burton's article is subject to a publisher's editorial oversight, or that Burton fulfills the "established expert" caveat of WP:SPS, will you accept it as significant coverage? Marasmusine (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would go a long way toward accepting it, yes. Strikerforce (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my one shot defence, then :) The published source route: The New York Times Company is legally responsible for the content on About.com. One would normally find a disclaimer for content not vetted by the publisher (for example, forums). There's no disclaimer on Burton's article, and in addition Guides are held to editorial standards ([133]). If we go the SPS route: Bill Burton's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Books: [134], [135], Magazines: [136], [137]. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... good argument. That makes me lean more toward the keep side of things, but I'm not going to withdraw my nomination for the simple fact that I believe that once a nomination is made, the debate should run its course, unless the result is blatantly a keep or speedy keep. Strikerforce (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source I can find that is explicitly about the subject of the article is the about.com article... but (1) one article does not meet the "significant" coverage aspect of WP:GNG, and (2) it is unclear whether it is anything more than a blog post. The other mentions in actual media are extremely trivial, i.e., the sources discussing the New Jersey e-gaming bill are effectively about that legislation, and only mention this company in passing. All other sources I can see appear to be press releases and/or are of otherwise dubious reliability. Does not meet notability criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:N#cite_note-2 which recommends multiple sources. "Significance" is a descriptor for quality, not quanitity. With only one significant source, yes, there is an argument for merging High 5 Games into a broader topic. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smencil

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

Non-notable product. No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 04:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources only indicate passing mention by school fundraisings selling Smencils. Aka scratch-and-sniff pencil. But no reliable sources indicate significant coverage to justify its individual article, and if ever found the article needs to be substantially rewritten. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signifcant coverage provided at the article. Google News finds just press releases or passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qi peng

AfDs for this article:

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

I am admittedly not an art expert, but I fail to see how this man passes WP:ARTIST. The article, which is without references and the external links provide little in the way of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The article was started by a now blocked account that spammed several other articles with links from a blacklisted site and those links were written by, yes, qi peng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Smacks of being promotional. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN and non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punchbuggy (band)

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

Little to no success in finding third-party coverage of this band in a Google search. Appears to have been an unremarkable 90s band whose only real claim to fame is one song being used in a PlayStation game and another being used in a Tom Green movie. Strikerforce (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By your own submission, this article meets WP:BAND #10. The article shows four releases thus meeting WP:BAND #5. I found many third-party sources meeting WP:BAND #1. The article was missing citations and WP:LEAD which I will add. Argolin (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional citations show that this band meets WP:MUSIC#1 and WP:MUSIC#5 through independent coverage and releases on major labels. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Allmusic review alone, but the others refs don't hurt. Robman94 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Big Dom 07:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Conference

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

No need for an unremarkable high school athletic conference to have its own article. Strikerforce (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of high school athletic conferences in Wisconsin. I like the presentation, and the target article could benefit from the structure, but I agree that it's not notable on its own. Mandsford 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the other WIAA conferences, some of them smaller, have pages of their own. redhead3434 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see why any conference is any more notable that any other one. It would be extremely time consuming to change the format on the statewide article to comply with this one. The color usage doesn't follow the MOS. So I'm torn if all of the conference articles from Wisconsin should be deleted. Royal broil 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading all of the comments and contemplating, I think that King of Hearts is right. There probably are enough reliable sources if someone spends time to properly research. I don't think that every conference should be deleted. Royal broil 00:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Matt, rather than KoH? A little confused, I is, Mister Royal... :) Strikerforce (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Strikerforce. You're right, I did mean Matt. I copied the wrong name. Royal broil 04:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do think that the state high school association articles should have a list of who's in what conference, I don't think that most conferences would pass WP:GNG. From what I've seen, high school conferences aren't considered notable even by the local newspapers. They're similar to college conferences to the extent that the teams in the group schedule games against each other, but the resemblance stops there. For one thing, playoffs are based on how the state HSAA groups its regions and districts. For another, high school teams can't recruit their players, so there is no building of strength or reputation for a particular group of teams-- a player can choose whether to play for a team in the Big Ten or the SEC, while a high school player's choices are limited by residence. Mandsford 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Keep - high school conferences actually can often be shown to meet the GNG if proper time is given to researching them. I've done several myself, which are well sourced. That said, it requires significant newspaper research time. But if someone is willing to go into the newspaper archives of the major Wisconsin papers, you'll be able to find plenty of articles about realignments, conference moves, etc. I sadly don't have the time to do it myself right now, but I'd be happy to suggest methods for finding the data if anyone is interested in undertaking it. matt91486 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Notability not established. All arguments for keeping are textbook Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: other residence hall articles exist; people want to find residence hall information here; keeping the article does no harm; or residence halls are important. Provide reliable secondary sources to establish that it is important. postdlf (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zahm Hall (University of Notre Dame)

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

This article about a residence hall of Notre Dame does not provide any evidence that the Hall meets the general notability guidelines. A search through news archives produces a number of hits, but, outside of non-independent university publications (the Observer Online), mentions are always insignificant (usually of the form "X lived at Zahm Hall while at Notre Dame"). Notability cannot be inherited from the university itself. Unless we can establish that this hall is notable outside of Notre Dame itself, it should not have it's own article (there's already a general List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame article). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not for listing dormitories. No claim of notability. Being a place where people who go to notable educational establishment live is not a claim of notability. MLA (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article is deleted, all articles, including Fisher Hall (which is not a candidate for deletion), should be as well. Dormitories are essential parts that make up the University of Notre Dame and are thus are notable, much more than dormitories at other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahmhouse (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually intend to look at the rest of the dormitory articles individually and see if they also meet our notability guidelines, after this AfD closes. Note that it is possible that some of them are notable while others are not; the primary determiner is whether or not they have been covered in detail in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The relationships between the dorms and the university are irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia measures notability according to whether or not the subject "has been noted" by the wider world. If you do know of outside sources that have discussed this dorm (not just mentioned that such and such person lived there, but in fact discussed the dorm, dorm life, etc. in detail), then please add them. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this individual dorm does not show any notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"" As a Masters in Fine Arts student at University of New Orleans, I came to this page for information that had been here a month ago and which had been vital background for a fiction piece and was horrified to find it purged. I was forced to waste a good portion of time searching to regain the information from a variety of other sources. The dormitories at Notre Dame in many ways act as replacement fraternities and sororities to the campus, and have distinctly individualized reputations, traditions, history, and as part of a Catholic campus, a religious affiliation. When pages exist for every fraternity and sorority on the map, even for fictional ones, I find it incredibly difficult to see how, comparatively, this topic 'lacks note'. This Wikipedia page is also likely to be the first place any incoming student or parents with a student assigned to Zahm will turn to for a sense of what it is like, which the Notre Dame site will not provide (i.e., Zahm's infamous reputation.)

Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines state that deletion should be a *last resort* for articles of unclear notability. Sources indicate this dorm cannot be said to have no notability-- at its worst, the informational value is merely unclear, leading me to suggest what harm can it do to leave it alone particularly when you may be underestimating its worth to others (for instance, a non-affiliated grad student frustrated enough to bother creating a Wikipedia account in order to state this at 3 in the morning!) (Furthermore, in regards to the description above of the Observer as "non-independent", a cursory look determined that it is, in fact, considered independent, even referring to itself as so in its byline, also serves St. Mary's, and is affiliated with the College Media Network, resulting in its articles being cross-posted to sites such as UWire, as apparent: http://uwire.com/2010/09/08/council-discusses-recent-arrests/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessieo (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Residence halls at the University of Notre Dame are unique among universities, with most students remaining in the same hall for their entire tenure at Notre Dame. As such, they function much more like fraternities or sororities than a typical residence hall at a state school for example. All of the halls at Notre Dame have a unique culture and history that makes them notable and unique, unlike most residential halls at other Universities. For this reason the article should be kept: it is a notable source of information for prospective students of the University, alumni of the University, and those who are simply curious about the unique residence hall system at Notre Dame, and until recently contained information that could not be found on the University's website. To delete the article would set a precedent to delete all of the residence hall articles about Notre Dame, depriving those seeking information about the dorms of what they would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnk20 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked at the "External Links" added, which may be enough to establish notability. However, I do want to comment that it is absolutely irrelevant that prospective students, parents would come here looking for information about the dorm, because that isn't Wikipedia's purpose. We provide enyclopedic information about notable subjects, not about every possible subject in existence. By the logic that this should be kept because some people might find it useful, we should never delete nearly anything, even pages about any garage band who ever played a single show, people with no notability at all, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere; we've chosen to do so by checking to see if other, independent, reliable sources have discussed the subject in detail. That's the question we need to determine the answer to. As for precedent, well, yes, it may well turn out that we should go and delete more things--that's part of the work that has to be done on Wikipedia. I'm actually inclined to believe that, most likely, we should have one single page collecting the majority of these halls, with brief information about each, and only those with clear, reliable sources should have their own page. Zahm hall may be one of those--I'll try to look at those links in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwryxian sounds like some kind of friendless virgin loser if you ask me. "Delete" him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.56 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Carver

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

non notable musician. References given are trivial mentions and google searches provide nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There was a criminal active 110 years ago named Tod Carver who got a lot of press attention at the time, but I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this musician of the same name. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Botwood

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

Contested prod. Biographical article about a computer games designer. No evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE or more generally per WP:GNG. Some of the projects he has worked on are notable but notability is not inherited andy (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bayliss andy (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While all in the context of the release of Perfect Dark Zero and GoldenEye 007, Botwood was featured in an interview with IGN here, Eurogamer here, and 1UP.com here and here. Also, while not necessarily a reliable source on its own merits, another interview with Botwood here. There should be enough mention for him to pass on notability standards. –MuZemike 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standards of WP:CREATIVE are pretty high, but even disregarding that where's the compliance with WP:GNG? Goldeneye is notable but notability isn't inherited (otherwise I'd be notable because I saw the film and played the game!). andy (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not think he passes #3 of CREATIVE? "played a major role in co-creating" = senior designer; "a significant or well-known work that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" = GoldenEye. Marasmusine (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we need is interviews with the designer about himself, not interviews about his companies with him as the spokesperson.--Sloane (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare (company) and use the sources to improve that article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portaledge

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

From googling, a "portaledge" does seem to be a real product, but this article is more advertisement than it is article. B (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @B, is the rationale for deletion based on advertisement content or notability? If it's advertising, that can just be removed. If it's notability, here are some sections from books available on Google Books (@B, you should try googling books too).[138][139] I'm sure there are more books not on Google that describe the portaledge. Also, are there no editors that climb that could shed some light? Disclosure:No vested interest. -Temporal User (Talk) 10:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Mathy

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

The page has been flagged for notability, lack of references, and no linking articles for years. It was deleted once and requested to be put back. The individual in question is not at all clearly notable. Phoenixfire213 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the evidence for WP:GNG or WP:PROF. If indeed her book was listed by the NY Times Review (a fact I can't verify) then perhaps it is notable, but that would still be a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The listed book seems influential enough (95 GScholar cites), and the NYReview of Books claim appears legit. Assuming both of these hold up, I think she meets WP:PROF. She also seems to have a lot of recent press in connection with this widely publicized incident [140], and is characterized in RS-reports as a "leading researcher" in her field. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was unable to find an entry for that title in the book review search engine results of the NYTimes. Has anyone seen it directly?— James Cantor (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Review of Books is not part of the New York Times; it looks to me like the article miscites the publication. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. What was the confirmation you found?— James Cantor (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it on the NYRB site, but I don't know how complete its archives are. I did find a number of (paywalled) sources mentioning both the book and the NYRB, which is supportive but not directly confirming; that's why my comment was weasel-worded on this point. Looking into things a little further this morning, I'm struck by the fact that the AFD nomination was started by an SPA and a long-dormant user, just a day or two after Mathy's involvement in a current academic controversy made national press. So right now I think that the often-cited book (GScholar) and the currently documented reputation as a "leading researcher" are enough to demonstrate notability, with or without confirmation of the NYRB citation. (Interesdtingly, the IP who placed the initial deletion notice traces back to Evanston, IL, where Northwestern University is located, and Mathy's current press comes from a dispute over a dispute over a professor's actions at . . . Northwestern University. So I'm a bit suspicious of the nomination (but not any of the other comments). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Password management. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privileged password management

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

Not encyclopedic, no references; furthermore by definition all passwords are "privileged" due to access they grant. Moonradar (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments about the overall notability of the article, but to comment on the OP a bit - although all passwords (presumably) grant some form of access and are thus privileged, 'privileged password' in this context is used to refer to the passwords to accounts that have privileges elevated over those afforded the normal user. I have previously heard the term used in off-wiki contexts. I can see why it would be confusing, but it isn't nonsensical or anything. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is indeed a difference between privileged passwords and user access passwords: The latter allows usage of a service, the former allows configuration of a service. This is found in many networking devices, but also on ordinary PCs, where an accound password and an administrator password exists. --Pgallert (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Either merge with the totally unreferenced stub Password management, or keep if two different articles are really necessary. I changed the {{unreferenced}} into {{morefootnotes}} and renamed the "External Links" section to "References" because the White Papers listed do support many of the claims the article contains. --Pgallert (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Password management; subject appears to have some coverage, and would work as a subtopic of that article.Dialectric (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11. This is an advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Postcard Week

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

It's understood that this article may be deleted. Before deleting, I ask that the author be given time to collect the bibliographic information. Much of the material she has is anecdotal or interview style evidence, as there are virtually no references to National Postcard Week in easy format. I have offered to help her put the material together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodyart (talk • contribs) 2011/02/15 18:44:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the current content and lack of sources. It's possible this article could be improved enough to justify keeping it, but so far that hasn't happened yet. If it does, I may reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Gymnasium Belgrade curriculum

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Quibik (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable topic. This information is sourced almost exclusively to the school's own web site. If anything here is particularly important, it can be merged to Mathematical Gymnasium Belgrade instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jumz

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

Appears to exist in the world of mixtapes, etc., but does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. No charting songs, albums are self-published, tour claim sourceable only to press releases and other self-published sources. Lack of non-trivial coverage actually about him from WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Deprodded by IP without explanation. Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has been in the mixtape circuit for some time he does have a single on a globally distributed album with Grandmaster Flash which was released through a Major. The song also includes Qtip of Tribe Called Quest. As far as his touring, he has documented footage on youtube of his show in Paris, France and many pictures on his myspace that proves this. I'm not sure if these guidelines on Wikipedia are new but we've been managing his Wiki post from time to time and we've never come across this issue. greg.raimes@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.119.106 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bassett

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

Actor with no indications of notability WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Chong (comedian)

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

declined PROD. fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. fails to get significant coverage for supposed radio and comedy career. gnews reveals namesakes overseas but no Australian coverage except this item about a different Jason. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:BIO including WP:BIO#Entertainers. Existing refs in article are only passing mentions. Apparently his largest claim to fame is that 5 years ago he was repeatedly a secondary personality the stars called "Wokboy" on an Adelaide evening radio show — I can't find enough references to even figure it out yet. Only one Google News hit that appears to be him, mentioned in passing: 2007 (described as a "radio presenter" in a list of 5 people). Found him mentioned in a couple press releases and a couple other such non-WP:RS boosterism things. --Closeapple (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INS Cinque

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

There is no ship called INS Cinque of the Car Nicobar class fast attack craft or in the Indian Navy. This page has been created based on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/t-car-nicobar.htm, which mis-reported the name for INS Kora Divh (T71). Skcpublic (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move article to the INS Kora Divh (T71) name over its current redirect to the Car Nicobar class article. Brad (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Cornejo Murrieta

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

Not notable Toolsavoid e (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to it apart from talk and afd. Toolsavoid e (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book I am using is listing the most important writers from Sonora Mexico. I am also working on improving the Sonora page (I have worked extensively on Puebla, Morelos, Veracruz and other states) which will link to these pages. Orphan tag is fine, but that doesnt indicate lack of notability. I just dont want to put all this information on the Sonora state page. Better on their own pages. Thelmadatter (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Cullen328 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has a Sonoran literary prize named after him, and the article has a reference for this. That seems to establish verified notability. Also found this and this to support what was already there. Nihola (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References tells a quite sure notability story.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate if someone wishes to do so in good faith. Nominator is a sock puppet of Crouch, Swale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Barber Ogden

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

NN bio Spaceeeeeee (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. -- Lear's Fool 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Derecho

Article about the project who does not exist. Placement of misinformation.--Kachamack (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. -- Lear's Fool 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle Marathon

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

Non-notable, very little content, unreferenced Lozleader (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Herringshaw

This article appears to be a COI page, per: The COI definition page [141] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatimpeller (talk • contribs) 2011/03/06 03:56:22

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree, some of the content is too personal and should be removed, but the guy created new technology for internet-based geolocation, and wrote/holds several patents on the same, for which I see the citations and evidence right on the page. That is certainly a notable technology achievement for a niche sector. Don't really agree that an deletion is appropriate, just editing to remove the overly personal information. Daedalon99 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that per the patents reference, many people contributed to the patents listed, Mr. Herringshaw is indeed one of those people. However there are multiple patents in this field and I know of no other inventors listed on Wikipedia. It should further be noted that "Daedalon99" is similar to one of the companies Mr. Herringshaw claims to have started, possibly indicating that "Daedalon99" is in fact Mr. Herringshaw, or someone acting on his behalf. As such, the comment above should be viewed with a critical eye. I vote for the entry to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.106.136.145 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed with the above, I see no reason for this page to exist. As is pointed out, it is a niche sector and this person is one of many who were named in the mentioned patents. I am sure his role, as with all co-inventors, is debatable by all involved. Knowing the IP side of this niche, I don't think is is correct to insinuate that Mr. Herringshaw is responsible for this technology, nor that the technology was new. Based on the number of granted patents in this space from other companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Digital Envoy, AT&T, Google and others I may not be aware of, I do not see a legitimate claim by Mr. Herringshaw to having invented a technology, and as an extension, having a page claiming as much on Wikipedia. I think the initial COI is entirely correct. My recommendation stands that this page be removed due to a clear COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatimpeller (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of any COI problems that may exist on the article, it does not establish notability and back it up with independent, reliable sources. Holding patents does not grant someone notability, and none of the references appear to be covering the subject. They all appear to be in some primary, or simply listings (i.e. he gave a talk at XYZ or he was associated with company ABC.) User Daedalon99 (talk · contribs) uses a name that appears to be associated with the subject and thus likely has a conflict of interest. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME. References which are not properly citated inline do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.106.240.5 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is obviously a vanity page.

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan_Theisen

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject has not received sufficient attention from his community at large to merit inclusion. So far, any notability appears to be minor, geographically limited to the American Midwest, and temporary.

Subject fails notability test at WP:COMPOSER.

Lack of notability implies a possible conflict of interest. Due to a lack of general information on the subject from other reliable sources, it is reasonable to assume the subject himself is the primary author. If this is the case, it is clearly an effort to advance his outside, personal interests in career development rather than contributing to general knowledge in the field of contemporary music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligetisays (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film-type Patterned Retarder

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

Current sources are clearly press releases from one company (LC) and quick (but not comprehensive) Google search suggests this may be a one-company technology which has not yet created any real buzz. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This technology has been around for quite a while. LG's "film-type" appears to be an improvement on polarizing filters for 3D displays. Maybe a paragraph devoted to FPR here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#Polarization_systems would be more informative.98.112.184.205 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The design is notable (Google [142] and Scholar [143]) and is more than a stub, I do not see why a "buzz" is required, simply notablility and sources. Possibly Merge to 3DTV#Technologies or 3DTV#TV sets though. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Track and Field Spikes

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

Non notable topic that does not meet WP:GNG. Topic already is covered by track spikes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Sofos

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

Unreferenced biography of musician/composer. I can find no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Insufficient secondary source material to mount a rewrite that would satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Article creator's username matches subject's record label, suggesting the purpose is likely promotional, but probably falls short of WP:CSD#G11.

I am also nominating for similar reasons the following related page whose subject is a recording by this musician:

-- Rrburke (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Dino's article is deleted, we should also dispose of his project WE ARE FREE, which has notability only in its connection to him, as far as I can tell. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I did some looking for independent sources on this guy, and didn't find any. His connection with Road to Guantanamo appears tenuous - he appears nowhere in the IMbd entry for it. "Breathe Sunshine" clearly had some minor popularity, but I can't find any mention of it in anything like an actual magazine or newsletter. Out, unless better sources are found. (See next comment.) Brianyoumans (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I found an article on him, which claims that he composes music for movie trailers, and talks about a substantial - if perhaps not particularly publicly notable - career as a sound editor and engineer. I'm not certain what someone putting together the music for a trailer does - do they compose new music? Or do they just stitch together some music from the movie soundtrack? It probably varies. I don't know what category Sofos falls in. Clearly he hasn't gotten a lot of public notice for it. I think I'll upgrade him to a weak delete.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I saw plenty of Ghits, but they were mostly commercial links to sell music. I couldn't actually find a single full-length review that would nudge things in the direction of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO point 1. It didn't seem to me that music trailers would qualify for keeping the article under point 10. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sofos has won some awards in his work that indicate notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guideline WP:MUSICBIO refers to a "major award," offering as examples the Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. I fail to see how receiving a comparatively obscure marketing award meets this guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Track spikes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pole vault spikes

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

Non notable topic that does not meet WP:GNG. Topic already is covered by track spikes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does appear that pole vault spikes are a distinct subset of track spikes. I'm not sure whether an independent article is merited; a merger and a redirect may well be a better way to convey the information. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)

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

Large number of missing sources. I have looked and can't find anything to verify any of the very many unsourced positions; nothing published by CANOE seems to have any kind of archive. We had the same problem with the 2004-present Canadian Country Singles and Canadian Country Albums charts, which are published in a similar fashion and similarly lack any sort of searchable archive to verify the info (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)). Note that the 2011 article is cited only to a single page on canoe.ca, which displays only the present week's chart and no sort of archive to search previous weeks' positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom. Unverified article. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unilateral misreading/revision of WP:V, which does not require that sources be accessible in online archives. In addition, the nomination misstates the condition of the supposedly dubious 2010 references, which have been documented via webcitation.org regularly for several months. There isn't any serious claim that anyone has been fabricating the charts rather than simply reporting them as they appear, and there's no indication that there are any substantive disputes about the accuracy of the listings. This is, therefore, no more appropriate c case for deletion than insisting that an article sourced from dead-tree books be deleted simply because the book texts aren't available online. If I read things right, the chart is available for reference through a free-subscription newsletter, which any concerned editor can get access to going forward, providing the level of verification looked for. The cited prior AFD therefore appears a dubious "prcedent" and may itself need to be re-examined. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Hullabaloo on WP:V, but am not at all convinced on notability. Is there any precedent or context which supports treating lists such as this as notable? If there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, why aren't they referenced? The above-mentioned AFD discussion did not provide an answer, so I believe deletion was correct there and I'll change my !vote to delete if the issue is not resolved here. Ma^t_chups 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of number-one singles on a major chart can generally stay if the positions can be verified, which would include any chart published by Billboard since the positions are easily found there. Many other discussions have said that chart position lists should be deleted if the chart is unverifiable and/or would otherwise be included on WP:BADCHARTS — there's some Mediabase chart AFD floating around right now with positions sourced to a fansite only, and it's looking like a delete. This one, too, has no reliable sources for the positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (programming language)

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

Non-notable programming language released on March 1, 2011 lacking GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree with the view that the language is not notable, it is simply new. Previous languages made by the same team are notable, and it stands to reason this one will be as well." - quoted from the History page - I agree 216.14.198.58 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia notability is based on providing verifiable, independent, reliable sources, not the age of the article subject. There does not seem to be adequate reliable sources to support nobility. ttonyb (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ttonyb1. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Monkey programming language was evolved from the BlitzMax programming language, and if you use the BlitzMax references as base for the Monkey programming language, it should be more than enough to justify the wiki entry for the Monkey programming language. Lumooja

Comment – Unfortunately notability is not inherited. BlitzMax may or may not be notable, but that has no bearing on the notability of Monkey. ttonyb (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why Wiki requires a certain amount of references for a Wiki entry. What if something unique and spectacular happened once in the whole history, like God appearing to someone, and he even took a picture. There would be no references since only a single person saw it, but it is still a remarkable event.Lumooja

Comment – Simply because Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. In your example, what if the person was delusional and only saw their reflection in a mirror? Would that necessitate a Wikipedia article? My guess is not. If it were truly a second coming, I am sure there would be a lot of reliable sources to support the event. Until an something can be verified, it cannot be considered by Wikipedia as notable. ttonyb (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted otis

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

Non-notable actor. A handful of bit parts, but nothing more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:DENY. In view of the posts at User talk:Sanddude, it obvious that Sanddude has aspiration to frustrate the Wikipedia project and community through the creation of multiple poorly-written pages about baseball players and actors. Keep - Very likely there is sufficient reliable source material for the article. Move to Ted Otis (Uppercase "O" in last name). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse (band)

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

Does not meet any criterion of WP:NM. Contested PROD. Orphan. — Jeff G. ツ 18:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They are an unsigned band with no albums or EPs, and one released single. Unsurprisingly, I can find no significant coverage about this band in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real refs (and none knocking around within sight on google or bing). Maybe one day they will warrant an entry, but no evidence of notability yet. Bennydigital (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to Thomas and Friends (series 15). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily and Dash

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

Articles are about episodes of Thomas and Friends (series 15), a children's television series. There is no evidence that these episodes are notable in their own right to each require a separate article separate from the series page. Furthermore, the articles essentially consist of lengthy plot summaries (WP:WAF) and do not cite any sources. Per WP:EPISODE I propose these be deleted or redirected to Thomas and Friends (series 15). Zachlipton (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to episode list. There's nothing particularly notable about this specific episode of the series. There's been no significant coverage or critical review that would justify a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an episode list. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan-Michael Cox

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

This seems more like a resume' then an actual article. There has only been mild entries that like to other people instead of anything on his own. Hourick (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to stub and keep. This is a really difficult one. The nominator is right - it does read like a resume and the list of artists is excessive, unreferenced, and needs pruning. There is worse: the exact text of the article appears elsewhere so it might be a copyright violation (but then, those other articles could be mirroring Wikipedia) and it is under-referenced - of the three links only one actually works and it's not major coverage. Indeed, some of the assertions appear to fail simple checks - for example, the article states 4 GRAMMY's have been awarded, but the GRAMMY website disputes this, with only one listed (and its for a different year). Therein lies the problem: the article is clearly unreliable but even one GRAMMY award meets inclusion criteria (WP:MUSICBIO #8). My recommendation is to prune the article down to a stub containing only what is verifiably referenced, or failing that to delete with no prejudice against anyone recreating a properly referenced replacement. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You looked far deeper than I did and I checked quite a bit and don't AFD lightly. One award win does meet guidelines, if not a deletion, then I suggest a good amount of pruning or merging might suffice. --Hourick (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ParentInterview

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. A7 CSD removed. Cind.amuse 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first service in Canada to offer this but I don't have a citation for that. A3camero (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went to Northern and remember it being a big deal at the time. I think it got some local coverage that I can try and track down.--J2000ca (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ge'ba Alphabet

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

Suspected WP:HOAX: unreferenced, zero mention of alphabet or language online, "Language Family: Afro-Asiatic Slavic Somalian Slavic" sounds highly improbable. Two other articles by creator previously speedied as hoaxes. Speedy db-g3 declined by admin. Shire Reeve (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. There seems to be a campaign to promote the existance of Chubby or Chubby Slavic languages but a Google search is revealing. AJHingston (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) as a hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chubebabe Language. Cnilep (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the language families — I got the impression that the author was saying that this alphabet was used by languages in those families. That by itself isn't implausible, since our alphabet is also used by Finno-Ugric languages, Vietnamese, and other unrelated types of languages. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, no evidence that the Ge'ba alphabet exists. There are several warnings that this plausible-sounding page is indeed a hoax. First, similar pages (such as the above-mentioned Chubebabe) have recently been created, possibly by the same person or group. Second, I am aware of no such thing as ISO 685, and the ISO 639 (language code) has well-established 2- or 3-letter codes, but is only beginning to develop 4-letter codes; I know of no GEEB code (GEZ is Ge'ez and GBA is Gbaya). Also, those codes are for languages (or language families), not for alphabets. Third, and relatedly, the page confuses the concepts of language and alphabet.

Furthermore, some of the information on this page appears to be more or less plagiarized from this page or a mirror of it, discussing the Ge'ez language, which, unlike Ge'ba, I know does exist and is used in (Ethiopian, not Bulgarian) Orthodox churches. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or not, I can't find any evidence such a thing exists. 28bytes (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not well established in reliable sources, want to get more eyes on it since it had been deleted previously. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Talk:Leuren Moret. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The G-Books and G-News Archive searches suggest that Moret is a notable activist whose opinions attracted the attention of media all over the world. I don't see any benefits in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not only WP:N for the subject shown by WP:V WP:RS, but the potential for expansion of the article shown by numerous Google Books citations such as the Interview with LM and Alfred Labremont Webre, Coop Radio, Vancouver BC, 23 July 2007, in Project Artichoke by David M Silvey Author House, pages 129-141. The interview ranges through her expertise on the subjects of MKULTRA, HAARP, Woodpecker Project, Superfund, Skull and Bones, the KKK, the Shiva laser and even her previous work as a drilling geologist

Anarchangel (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked into any other sources, so have no opinion as to whether we should keep or delete this, but I must point out that that book is self-published via AuthorHouse. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will hunt for better sources later. Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Leuren+Moret"&dq="Leuren+Moret"&hl=en&ei=S72NTfaeF4agsQOR0q2aCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADgK Proceedings of the ... annual meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Much less inspiring in terms of expanding the article, but it is definitely not self-published. There are others in books, which serves to indicated notability.

I would hope for agreement to the statement that self-published books would be sufficient to establish verifiability for individual statements in the article, especially when a second book places her in a CFRO interview on the same subject, but I suppose that is a matter for another time and place (the talk page). Anarchangel (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what it is about Wikipedia and cites lately, but perfectly well formatted links are Da Phail recently. Look for the book I cited with the Google Books button up there, and you will get the page she is cited on instead of that snowstorm of URL code linking only to the cover of the article. Anarchangel (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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