Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 23

< 22 March	24 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. Big Dom 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pohnpei 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. This team may be considered marginally more notable for tangential associations with others - Mark Watson's brother was their manager and they went on a tour sponsored by a cargo airline. None of this comes close to meeting WP:N in my opinion but thought full disclosure was best. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and this team has done nothing to merit its own article. Giant Snowman 13:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A state team which has done nothing of note. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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. Big Dom 07:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNATMAP

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

Non-notable network protocol. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails GNG Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gapforce

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

As far as I can see, this organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. The only references and external links in the article that mention Gapforce at all are self-published or do so in self-written blurbs; not the significant coverage in independent secondary sources that allows us to write a meaningful article with verifiable content. There are some news articles referencing Gapforce volunteer activities, particularly in Belize, but in my opinion together still not enough to base an article on. An earlier {{prod}} tag was removed. There are strong indications of conflict of interest editing. --Lambiam 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:Before nominating an article for deletion, you should check Google News Archive and Google Books for any reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, to see if the notability guideline (WP:ORG in this case) is satisfied. It is not limited to the refs presently cited in the article. At Google News Archive there are several similar stories from March 2009:[1], coverage from later in 2009: [2], and some coverage from 2010: [3]. Google Book search shows substantial coverage of Greenforce and Gapforce:[4]. These refs barely support notability. Maybe someone can find others. Edison (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those, and did not have the feeling they offered enough in-depth coverage to be able to base an article on; the present article is very superficial and not encyclopedic (but a {{Multiple issues}} tag was removed together with the {{prod}} tag). The primary author of the chapter about Greenforce in the book you found by Google Book search was on placement with Greenforce, where she next worked until October last year – not the level of independence we need. --Lambiam 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unless the article gets formated and someone finds reliability and notability references the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria to be notable enough to own an article here. This is easily solved by article expansion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not delete just because some editing is needed to include references which have been identified, or to revise the wording or layout. The notability guideline is WP:ORG, which might barely be satisfied. Edison (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is one of the guidelines that must be satisfied, but if the article gets expanded, correctly written and sourced, its notability is reached. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references shown above are sufficient for notability. For things hard to judge otherwise, the GNG does have a place. We do not delete because of needed improvement; we sometimes do delete because an article cannot be improved. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 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) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Christians Canada Inc.

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

No assertion of notability made: GNews brings up about 30 hits over the past few years, but no substantial coverage. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been scanning the ghits, and found one I am very tempted to add to the article, although how much notability it shows I leave to others to decide first. http://www.gaycalgary.com/magazine.aspx?id=26&article=1054 Peridon (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2009 Ganesh incident seems to have provoked a couple of dedicated articles, the first with hundreds of comments, indicating that it was an issue of some significance in Calgary. I've added that information to the article.
- Oh, and it should probably be moved to Concerned Christians Canada, which seems to be the generally recognized name. -- Theodolite ➹ 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be other organisations with very similar names - I found one that seemed to be to do with (but not part of) the Latter Day Saints). Makes searching difficult. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have moved the page to Concerned Christians Canada. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding the coverage in reliable sources. The elephant thing doesn't appear to have been significant, and the one or two articles on it are the only non-trivial coverage this group gets. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG for lack of indepth coverage. gets passing mentions in media. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and LibStar. PK T(alk) 14:07, 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. Consensus is that political activities do not pass WP:POLITICIAN and the incident cited is a case of WP:BLP1E. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Lai Lam

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

Unelected politicians are generally not notable despite receiving press mentions during the campaign.There is no claim to notability outside failed political races. The article alludes, but does not cite sources, that she may be a protest candidate. If that is the case we need very good sourcing from neutral sources describing that role. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is HK famous, especially after the Hong Kong by-election, 2010 and breast incident, but not internationally famous. So where does that fit in notability criteria? And I ask that because there are alot of successful and failed politicians for example in the US, Canada etc who are very famous, but are virtually unknown outside where they work. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locally famous outside last years election incident? If that is the extent of it the incident is worth a sentence or two in the article about the election, otherwise I don't see it.

Can you please help with sourcing this, and the claims made? Youtube doesn't cut it and I'd really hope for more than gossip pages in The Standard. WP:POLITICIAN is a pretty minimal guideline (which is why so many US/Canadian officials have articles) but this article doesn't even meet that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Pburka (talk) 04:18, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The indecent assault incident is likely the critical point here. shows a few stories about her and I've seen the incident on TV (aTV or TVB I can't remember), so I'm leaning towards thinking she's notable per WP:POLITICIAN (but I'm not sure and would like to be convinced the other way.) Kayau Voting IS evil 16:26, 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. Big Dom 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Editor

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

Non notable software product. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as above, no reliable coverage in 3rd party sources. Possible advert. Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied the below comment from the article talk page: -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This software is rather new I understand but has the large user base and links from well known websites cnet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbean1 (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.