Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 16

< 15 August	17 August >

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Eric L. Coggins Award

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

Article does not assert award's significance. Written in a way that seems to glorify Coggins. Possible COI with the writer. Rabbit fang 07:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article as it stands reads more as a bio of Sgt Coggins, sources like this and this show to me that the award is notable within the army itself as they report on winners of the award and consider ( in some circles) that even being nominated is an honor. In my opinion this meets our standards. As I said the article as it stands now reads more of a bio for Sgt Coggins and definitely needs cleanup like a more in depth history etc etc. An "origin" of the award can be given to Sgt Coggins and such. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree altogether with Pudge MclameO. So I did the rewriting & added his references, which need to be filled out more completely. The material was apparently copied from as US=PD source, but it should be given exactly DGG ( talk ) 13:05, 16 August 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, BusterD (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article fits correctly in the category on US military awards. It is the sort of information that makes Wikipedia a useful reference. Bella the Ball (talk) 22:19, 25 August 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 with no prejudice to a renomination if GNG is not met soon Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foldaskóli

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

No notability for an elementary school. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the exception that proves the rule; a new component in the national curriculum was developed at the school, by two of its teachers, so there are in fact substantive mentions of the school in reliable sources. Also it is not just an elementary school: it is a Grunnskóli or Compulsory School, years 1–10, ages to 16, and therefore should fall under the well established more lenient notability policy for "schools that educate teenagers." I've rewritten the article (which was based on the history section of the school's official website) bringing it up to date, adding references and external links, and including a paragraph on the connection to Innovation Education. I've also added that to the lede. I haven't really rooted around in search of newspaper coverage in Icelandic; the alt. chars. and inflected forms make Google's coverage very poor there, plus many of the newspapers have taken their archives offline. But I'll see what I can find over the next few days to cement the case. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are numerous mentions of the school in Morgunblaðið, including about its being the largest and the second largest school in the city in various years. I added information from there from an article about the annual competition in Innovation Education, which the school apparently began hosting years before the national curriculum was developed there, and it is still given as the location of the final invitational round in an undated English-language page on the Education Ministry's site, which I have also added as a ref. I believe there are now enough quality independent references to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An important school because of the link with Innovation Education as described above. Dahliarose (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played a significant part in Icelandic educational history. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 18 August 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. Courcelles 04:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naseeruddin Naseer

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

Questionable notability. References seems to just be blogs Rabbit fang 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Only sources seem to be social networking, I didn't see notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 August 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. Courcelles 04:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance hacker

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

PROD reason was "no evidence that anybody uses this term" Nominating because looking for such evidence the only "reliable" source I could find that uses the term seems to be the xcyss website, which just happens to sell a "XCySS Certified Compliance Hacker" certification. Outside of this, there appears to be no use of the term. - Sudo Ghost 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the term appears to be the same as white hat hacker.--Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a neologism that the editor (who happens to be User:Xcyss) is trying to push by getting a wikipedia article on it. That editor has not done anything except this article and links to it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:35, 18 August 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. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality/Indian Spirituality

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

Wikipedia is not the place for essays. If the creator wishes it, it could be moved into the user's userspace. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Presumably an original essay. The creator already has it on his page User:Chinmoy_biswas60/Sandbox MadCow257 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- NOT. Should have just been speedily deleted. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it under which criterion? -- $Σ talk contribs$ 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not original research and is notable. The banners on the page suggest that the article be wikified and that internal links be provided to existing material already available in the Wiki. I would agree. I will add that the style of writing also be modified to be more factual in approach. Currently the article reads like a manual (WP:NOTMANUAL). Extensive references and inline citation are needed. The article does have potential (WP:POTENTIAL). Should the article be deleted the author might consider moving it here[1], for instance. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator already has it on their talk page.

This article is not an original research; because wellknown books, Vedas, Upanishads, 6 Indian Phylosophies (Darshans) and Great Epics: Ramayana and Mahabharat, cover Indian Spirituality among other matters of interests. This not an essay as such, since writing an essay was never the objective of this article. As I did not find material in Wikipedia which has focus on Indian Spirituality, I thought it necessary to write on this for Wikipedia. Good material is there on Hinduism in Wikipedia, but there the focus is not on Spirituality. Most people do not distinguish between Religion and Spirituality; these two subjects are closely related but are not exactly same. Spiritality do not depend on faith on God, but Religion depends. Spirituality is a search for truth, universal truth and understanding the Truth. Religion's focus is on worship of God. So Wikipedia must have material written with focus on Spirituality.

I sometimes did write articles, but for Wikipedia this is my first artcle. I am not aware of some terminologies used in the discussions. As I am new to this. So I expect, there will be mistakes and the writeup has to be modified, I request all to read the article critically and suggest specific modifications.

- Chinmoy Biswas - writer of article: Indian Spirituality.

The article is further modified, based on user talk made available so far. I request all to see this critically and make suggestions for improvements. Again I request all to see the importance of the subject. Much material could not be found on Indian Spiritulity; or under 'Spirituality' head covering this subject. There are some material in Wikipedia on Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhaism etc. as Religions; but none have been found focused on Spirituality as a subject. So this article is felt necessary.

This is not an original research work, as the material is available in the original Sanskrit books like, Vedas, Upanishads, six Ancient Indian Books of Phylosophy (Shada Darshanas) etc. Some translations have also been published on them. This should also not be considered as an essay writings as such. It is felt useful for people refering Wikipedia. Chinmoy biswas60 (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Chinmoy Biswas - writer of Indian Spirituality.[reply]

comment I commend you on the depth and work you have put into this. I have no argument that this is not a notable subject for an article and would greatly like to see more depth in these articles on this particular wiki. That being said while I believe it should be deleted from main-space (article) as it stands at the moment, I think you should keep it in user space and be made encyclopedic as well as wikified. That is to say given how large it is and the nature of the article subject matter "wikifying" most likely can't be done overnight so to help avoid more deletion issues make this an encyclopedic article. Right now it reads as an essay and even a textbook at times. This is what in meant by not being encyclopedic. This includes, citations, proper sourcing and written style. Check out these links for guidelines. Just pop me a line on my talk and I'll elaborate more for ya. We'll see what we can do to help. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional POV essay I suggest that most of the material we could use is already here. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 22 August 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. Courcelles 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Maramatanga Society

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

I don't think this church has much notability. It appears to be an insignificant split from the Rātana movement D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two books reference it. No news results or other coverage, definitely appears insignificant MadCow257 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography has an article on the founder Ngapiki Hakaraia. I think any article appearing there is considered a notable topic by Wikiproject New Zealand. Apart from the book referenced in the article, there's also coverage in Ratana revisited: an unfinished legacy by Keith Newman, 2006, and in Maori times, Maori places: prophetic histories by Karen Sinclair 2003. Prophetic histories:the people of the Māramatanga also by Karen Sinclair 2002 may be the same book as above. There appears to be some coverage in Asia Pacific viewpoint, Volume 45, p 289, 2004. A Reflection on the relationship between the Māramatanga Movement and the Catholic Faith by P J Cullinane, 2004, appears highly relevant too. There may be a case for renaming to Ngapiki Hakaraia or to Te Maramatanga Christian Society.-gadfium 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any comments on the merge suggested on that page? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this AfD close other than as Keep or Rename, the merger would be preferable to deletion.-gadfium 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this topic is notable and the references are likely to be found. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ and http://www.nzdl.org/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa seem like a good places to start for coverage. Disclaimer: I'm an active member of Wikiproject New Zealand and have edited the closely-related Rātana pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but development of the article would be admirable. Moriori (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least merge per previous comments. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the NZ NB article, there's enough material to write a separate article about her. A merger can be subsequently discussed. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 17 August 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandella's Flatbread Café

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy. I could find no reliable independent sources which would indicate that this business meets the general notability criteria or the business criteria. All the hits I found were either promotional or based on press releases. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is another mess of an article, however I found several sources in major industry magazines:
- This one establishes notability - Scarpa, James (18 August 2008). "Sandella's blazes own trail, in part with high-tech kitchens". Nation's Restaurant News. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
- WP:V, can be used as a source describing its expansion - Killifer, Valerie (4 December 2009). "The fast casual gold rush". Fast Casual Magazine. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
- WP:V, can be a source for discussing its advertising programs - Elliott, Stuart (29 September 1998). "The Media Business - Advertising, Addenda". New York Times. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. I'm slightly surprised not to see solid sources for a consumer restaurant chain, but I am not finding them. Only the "Nation's Restaurant News" cite found byh Jeremy seems to be an in-depth source, and it is in a trade publication for restaurant owners, and consists mostly of an interview with the founder; independent story, but a non-independent source. (The NYT source is a sentence announcing that it's a client for an ad agency. Fast Casual is an online trade publication; the sentence there announces that three locations have been opened in Chicago. I found lots of similar coverage at Google News, but only routine announcements of openings, franchises, or permits awarded. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - NRN is an independent trade magazine specializing in the restaurant and foodservice industry, it is not an advertising service or publisher of press releases like Fast Casual.com is. The other two sources do not establish notability, just verifiability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cafe has received coverage from reliable independent sources as noted above. HeartSWild (talk) 20:26, 7 August 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, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is an odd situation: a large (150 sites) chain restaurant, with virtually no sources that describe it. I see the one source identified above, Nation's Restaurant News, which is okay. But if that is the only source, I just dont feel that is enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never before heard of a restaurant chain which, on the very same web page, claims to have over 100 open locations yet only lists 21 of them (plus 19 college locations where they work with vaguely identified accounts). Furthermore, the same "locations" page provides such "addresses" for some of its restaurants as "Retail Center Location, Al-khobar, Saudi Arabia"; "College Location, Dubai, UAE"; "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE"; and "Residential Shopping Center, Dubai, UAE". No street names, no telephone numbers. I can only conclude that this chain either doesn't know, or won't say, where some of its restaurants are located, and that it is not as large a chain as it claims to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The address format you claim as being problematic actually is very common in many parts of the world. Not every country follows the Western world's street name/number format. I encountered this issue with international franchises for the list of countries with Burger King franchises article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it's true that restaurants in Dubai typically don't use the "123 Main Street" address format, they do usually have at least a building name or street name to enable customers to find them. But Sandella's web site doesn't even provide that information (nor a telephone number for these locations). When I see a restaurant being listed as located in "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE," I tend to imagine someone having to wander from building to building in the 104°F (40°C) heat of a Dubai summer, asking at every stop whether the Sandella's is located there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Metropolitan90 there appears to be something fishy here. Either this isn't a chain in the normal sense, or there has been some radical organisational restructure or some of the apparent sources are misleading (or being misled). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lot of sources to be found at the News link at the subject's official site. I'm reading another article at Nation's Restaurant News which describes the company's switch in equipment and reheating foods (yum!). I've applied the above sources and some new ones to the page. I'm seeing why the disparity and the description of locations is confusing (serving from kiosks fed by a central hub bakery inflates the location numbers, but that's OR by me). Is there fluffery here? Probably, but it appears there are sources, though mostly industry trade magazines and local newspaper business sections. I'll let others decide if what I've added is enough. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Allowing credence to BusterD's request for responses to his/her additions, relisting this AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--the sources listed in the article satisfy WP:GNG. There's enough there for a decent neutral article about this restaurant chain. Meelar (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are there (though they need to be converted into inline citations). Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 August 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hatton

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

(Prod restored) Non-notable actor; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb shows no major roles, no awards, no substantial 3rd party sources etc Tassedethe (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources that could help this biographically, as I didn't find any good mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes he appeared in notable TV series... as "hippie #2" and "fratboy #4". Wikipedia doesn't do spear carriers. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: complete lack of sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: No significant coverage. Minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: He had a major role in a notable video game and hosts a notable television series. I am satisfied, but I may just not be very picky when it comes to WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability described above. Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that this had been AfD'ed six minutes after I'd restored it from PROD, with no explanation forthcoming by the nominator as to why he didn't allow time for promised improvements to be made. Hatton has had at least one current lead role that is not reflected in the article in its current state, described reliably and non-trivially here. That role was disclosed on my talk page during the PROD restoration request, but was not mentioned by the nominator. It may be that he's not ultimately notable yet, but the poor sportsmanship of the insta-nom without disclosing new sources troubles me. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment Despite the editor's concern about speed I saw this comment and as per WP:BEFORE I investigated. There is no article on In the Qube and IMDb shows that he was the host for 2 episodes. Even if this counted as a notable role WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple major roles. Tassedethe (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original PROD contestor has now added sources to the article, which indicate 3 additional RS'es in addition to the one I mentioned above. Thus, the question is not whether he meets ENTERTAINER, but whether he meets the GNG for coverage. Again, it's far from assured that that standard has been met, but every !vote prior to this one was made without reference to the source I found or the additional three added to the article by the requesting editor. Since the content has so substantially changed, I've contacted every above !voter and asked them to reconsider their position. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the Qube has no article = It is notable and could be created. Host of two episodes = since multiple articles mention him as the host, I think that it is safe to assume that IMDB just wasn't updated. I don't find the sources enough to meet WP:GNG, but enough to meet WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the show hosting and the sources for that are enough for me. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment re updated article. I don't find the additional sources particularly persuasive. The Variety ref is a brief article about an upcoming TV show that mentions him.[2]. The Designtaxi ref is about the designers of the show that mentions him briefly.[3]. The OnScreenAsian ref is a brief article about the upcoming TV show which mentions him briefly.[4] The sum total of these mentions: "Hosted by Maria Sansone and Tom Hatton"; "The concept behind the television show was to place hosts Maria Sansone and Tom Hatton within an actual 3D environment"; "Hosted by Maria Sansone (LX TV New York, TV Guide Channel, PopTub on YouTube) and Tom Hatton (Law & Order SVU, Life on Mars)". As already noted the Law & Order SVU and Life on Mars parts were Frat Boy #4 and Hippie #2. As to the video game that is sourced to IMDB. The List of Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony characters article doesn't show any character of that name (British Prince), nor any mention of the actor. I don't see how this can be regarded as a major part. (In the IMDB listing[5] this part comes just below Hotdog Vendor). I see no need to change my nomination. Tassedethe (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was notified that the article had been improved and invited to look at it again. When there, I went ahead and wikilinked some of the terms within and added the actor's filmography. In consideration, he has had a few un-named descriptive roles in a few productions: Hippie #2, Frat Boy #4, Mystery Guest Poker player, and British Prince (voice) do not meet WP:ENT. He did host 2 episodes of In the Qube, but IMDB only lists 2 episodes and notability of that series is not established. Even IF that series were determined as notable, that would still make only 1 notable production for which his role "might" be seen as significant. I am discounting all other roles where his role was simply a descriptive rather than a named character. His minor work can be verified, but he does not have reliable sources that speak about him in any detail: Design Taxi about In the Qube has only one sentence that simply mentions Hatton. The Variety article is about the Animax series, TheOn Screen Asia story about In the Qube simply states that he hosts. The Flicker page contains photographs. The Nominetwork (page 9) shows a picture of him as a fashion model. The Variety artcile about Animax simply confirms him as host and says nothiong else about the individual. The article also uses both IMDB and a personal website for sourcing. My opinion has not changed. Fails GNG. Fails ENT. Fails BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time for that analysis; I substantially agree with it. My point in arguing for the retention isn't to artificially inflate the article subject's notability, but rather to give it a fair trial in a way that the nominator seemingly went out of his way to avoid. As near as I can tell, the PROD contestor is actually Mr. Hatton himself or someone else closely associated, who's doing his honest best to make this article meet notability guidelines. I don't disagree that he's probably not there yet, but I do want to give him props for trying to work within our framework. I don't like Wiki-bullies who use process to obstruct misguided but sincere efforts like this. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Consensus is unclear. Rather than closing as no-consensus (which was a possibility), I've given this the benefit of doubt and relisted it for further comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:47, 16 August 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs of Croatia timeline

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

This looks like a valid article on the face of it, but the content is essentially a POV fork of the mainstream description of the Croatian War of Independence - see also Talk:Serbs of Croatia timeline. It's also generally incoherent to have the history of an entire people in a location (one that spans over four centuries IIRC) summed up in a period of a single decade. This is probably salvageable, but it would require an amount of effort that is effectively the same as starting a new article from scratch. Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ all applicable items into either Timeline of the Croatian War of Independence or Timeline of Yugoslav breakup. "Serbs of Croatia timeline" is a valid subject, but the original content (i.e. the content that isn't covered elsewhere) is missing. GregorB (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, not sure if there are any, but the format of the Timeline of Yugoslav breakup looks more promising for a merge. I'll see what I can do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that. Does anyone mind that we delete the article now and close the AfD? I don't see that a redirect with possibilities would make much sense here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. A redirect would not make much sense here, so given that the content has been merged, I'd say the page should be deleted outright. GregorB (talk) 22:46, 9 August 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, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either ~~merge~~ to Serbs of Croatia or keep, expanding to include every era of Serb presence in the region. This could actually stand as a timeline article in its own right. Serb History in Craotia did not begin and end with the 90s. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, but there effectively is no article content - even if we undo my last merge, there is no actual standalone content. Replacing it with a redirect to Serbs of Croatia would work, but it would still be an implausible redirect (it's doubtful that anyone will look up such a term). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it's delete or expand, then. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:51, 9 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:44, 16 August 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Express Yourself (TV series)

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

Pointless page. DisneyFriends (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1. The NOM's criteria is vague. What defines "pointless"? 2. The article admittedly needs a lot of work — it probably should be marked as a stub, and the lists of names should possibly be shortened and summarized in paragraph form such as "Among those appearing on ...." However, the show itself is notable along the lines of other Disney Channel shorts with articles, such as Leo Little's Big Show and Mike's Super Short Show — perhaps moreso, because it contains more content than simply promotion of other Disney products, as the two aforementioned ~~articles~~ shows do. — Michael J 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent commercials, it is more of PSA rather than a short series. They are presented in commercials. --DisneyFriends (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This RfD is total waste of time since it only provide the nominee's POV. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 August 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, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a long-running public service announcement series on the Disney channel. Unfortunately, I dont see any sources that satisfy the WP notability guidelines. I've done a moderate amount of searching, and found nothing of significance. Maybe someone else can find something. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant when I wrote pointless on the reason for deletion. It is just a public service announcement that runs for about a minute or two, but it is not actually a TV series. Now it only focuses on awareness for events happening, not for common themes amongst preteens and teens. --DisneyFriends (talk) 01:36, 10 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for expanding on your nomination statement, DisneyFriends. Just saying "pointless" has no meaning. You make interesting points worth considering. However, length does not necessarily define whether something is or is not a TV series. You have made a good argument, just note one enough for me to change my !vote. — Michael J 10:32, 16 August 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) 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strap it On (Phrase)

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

From the article, "*Neologism: ..." Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Enough said. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Take it to another wiki. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fast. It's awful. Its very existence is hurting Wikipedia. Per nom. Atomician (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEO. There are few people even using it, much less any reliable secondary sources MadCow257 (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the title's wrong. Atomician (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a term with no subject. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism, unreferenced stub. Edison (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:59, 17 August 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 Bigfoot#Hoaxes. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Whitton

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

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This person is known for one event only: being part of a bigfoot hoax in 2008. While the hoax garnered national attention and possibly deserves an article unto itself, I don't believe this person is notable is his own right, as he is not known for anything other than the hoax. I should note that a merge tag has been on the article since its creation in 2008, but I couldn't find any discussion of it in the talk page archives, and anyway I don't think merging to the Bigfoot article is an option. One hoaxer is just not notable in the grand scheme of the bigfoot legend. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We could rename this article and edit it into an article about the hoax which would give us a place to redirect the current name to. Is the hoax significant enough to keep if we did? RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't know. For a 2-3 week period in 2008, the event received a HUGE amount of news coverage, but it does not appear to have gotten any significant coverage since then (news coverage pretty much dropped off immediately after it was discovered to be a hoax), making me think it doesn't have any lasting notability. But I tend to lean to the deletionist side of things, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :) It's also worth noting that the hoax is mentioned in some detail in the Tom Biscardi article, because he basically was the mastermind behind it, and he is known for perpetuating bigfoot hoaxes in the past. Would redirecting Whitton to Biscardi's article be an option? SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes, where he's already mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, yes it is a hoax that should be having its own article in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 13 August 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) 01:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with the OP. He had a burst of news in 2008 but is otherwise low-profile. There is not extended coverage of him in any books or a documentary that I have found. MadCow257 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge per above. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 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 the new sources suggested in the AfD are not of sufficient scope or reliability to constitute significant coverage establishing notability. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Church (Australia)

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

Non-notable church. The only significant coverage I can find is [6]. Even this has as much about the interjector as the it does the subject. The rest of the linked newspaper article smells a bit like a press release. No in-depth widespread coverage. Fails WP:ORG. I have previously tagged for notability. Quality of text has deteriorated markedly in recent edits. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears on the List of the largest churches in Australia, but that is out of date, according to what's in this article. It's shrunk down to "ordinary size". It's got lots of programs, but there is no notability demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its appearing in some Wikipedia article has zero bearing on its notability, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also notability is not temporary. In no way are we publishing a list of things that are notable today, while deleting things that used to be notable. The problem is finding any reliable and independent sourcing for this church which is not run of the mill local paper coverage, or a community bulletin board. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A larger than average church, but the refs are directory listing of activities, or local government website, or local newspaper. These do not rise to satisfaction of WP:ORG. The church did "me-too" emulation of the Willow Creek model; no indication they did anything really innovative or with national or international effects. If the article is kept, the spammy praise of one family in the church, the Paynters, mentioned seven times in the article, including "2008 was a great year for the Paynter family as their son Michael released his long awaited singing career" should be corrected. It reads too much like like a Paynter Christmas letter archive. Edison (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly an attempt to sabotage this page was made with the edits made by 121.220.54.143. This person clearly added negative and opinionated conjecture to the page - both by repeatedly referencing the Paynter family (as per reason for deletion above) and by adding opinions about leadership failures, building and land set backs, copycat practices and inferring competition between pastors and churches - all of which are unnecessary in an article which should inform readers of facts. Similarly I have removed sections regarding leadership style and possible influence on the church due to their lack of relevance. This church clearly has a large influence on its local community given the number of local newspaper article on its programs - I think it should be kept based on its merit for an admittedly local group of people - particularly noting its programs available to the wider public of the area: theatre company (public profile), basketball association (public profile) and cafe (public) Singe.gill (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singe.gill (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Singe.gill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The editing mentioned above is so clearly in bad-faith, that I think the relevant principle is DENY. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please also discuss the notability of the subject, and not just the supposed bad-faith editing of someone. "DENY" is not a notability guideline. Goodfaith editors othere than the one noted have expressed doubts about the satisfaction of WP:ORG by this institution. Edison (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple of local press reports. It has clear local significance. To me the more global notability is likely to be from the church-planting in Papua New Guinea. Any chance of citations for that from PNG? Obviously there's plenty of scope for a clean up. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ORG says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." So more than local press reports is required. Edison (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My point is that there are probably reports in PNG given that four churches were started (as well as the ones we've found in Australia). Local reports in two countries makes the organization sufficiently international in impact in my books. --99of9 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment More than hand-waving assertions that "sources probably exist" is needed. Edison (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I have added a reference by the Digicel PNG Foundation documenting a partnership of theirs with Gateway for projects in Moitaka. Remember that English internet searches have a strong bias against finding news reports from PNG. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment And an article in Compassion Australia's magazine which mentions the work in Port Moresby and Goroko. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Edison. These sorts of "new wave" churches almost all make wild hand-waving assertions about their importance which are rarely able to be substantiated other than in their own publications. Orderinchaos 08:30, 21 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. no substantial coverage to justify existence of article. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (Nom) Just a comment regarding the recent refs added for the Papua New Guinea operations of the church. 99of9 has claimed that these reports "make the organisation sufficiently international", in his or her view. Firstly, they are both promotional material from the two charities and would barely be reliable. They may help substantiate specific claims made, but they are still not adequate to demonstrate notability of the subject of the article which must have significant widespread coverage. The refs provided are passing mentions of the subject and not about the subject itself. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the phrase "must have significant widespread coverage" does not appear in WP:ORG, let me remind you of what does appear in that guideline:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Which of these two standards do you think is missing? We have verified the international activities ("widespread"), and we have detailed coverage ("significant") from the local press. Sure, they're separate, but they add up to notability in my books (and the guideline IMO). --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) [P.S. For the avoidance of doubt: I have no conflict of interests with this organization, I had never heard of them before this AFD.][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) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Naked

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

Self-relesed EPs from the band. No secondary sources. Only source cited is a DVD. Prod declined in September 2010 for no reason. All other EPs by BNL have been redirected or deleted, save for one which charted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this (or if I should start a talk page), but I would think that we would at least want to keep the Yellow Tape page, since it's notable for being an indie release that went platinum in Canada. (Of course, it would be helpful if someone more knowledgeable than me about Canadian music, platinum status, and so forth could cite that.) DeadpoolRP (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another reference, I can look into adding more. What is "Prod declined"? And to echo DeadpoolRP, Yellow Tape is the seminal album for one of the most popular music groups in Canadian history. They wouldn't of been without it. The information on all these pages is priceless, and I think historically relevant. I find it sad that pre-WP pop culture is often deemed WP:N, yet recent things that are news for a week and forgotten about the next, stay. --Juventas (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed The Yellow Tape from this discussion since it now has a valid assertation of notability (platinum sales in Canada). The other two still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:52, 14 August 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) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the title — "Buck Naked" this would be a reasonable redirect to Nudity if the article doesn't deserve to exist. I have no opinions about keeping or deleting the other articles, and I have no opinion about whether or not "Buck Naked" should remain as an article about the present subject. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 17 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:10, 23 August 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. Courcelles 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Marseilles 2004 World Qualification

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:36, 9 August 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) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yikes, how many of these K-1 articles are there? Every single sporting event does not deserve its own WP article. Since there are virtually no independent sources on this event, it does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 16 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:03, 23 August 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, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan May Warren

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

The coverage of this author fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. The awards she has won are not of the caliber to establish notability per AUTHOR (like a Pulitzer would, I think). And the lack of reviews or other coverage means the subject fails BIO. And the article was created last month by a person claiming to be the author's son. Novaseminary (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 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) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dont see sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --Noleander (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any links (no news mentions either) that could help the article biographically.SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 17 August 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Holland GP 2001 in Arnhem

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

also nominating:

here we again with another useless series of sporting results. WP is not a repository for these non notable events that fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:35, 9 August 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) 00:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the same reason as the other forty K-1 related sporting event articles were deleted. --Noleander (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost nothing outside of these sources: http://liverkick.com, http://www.k-1sport.de, http://www.k-1.co.jp, http://www.headkicklegend.com, http://www.fightmag.net MadCow257 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable. Neutrality^talk

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ysmay

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

Sources listed are all primary. I'm not finding evidence of her being renowned or meeting our notability standards at all. LadyofShalott 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, no third-party sources. This does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revise - I think the problem is Ysmay wasn't born "Ysmay." It appears to be a professional and/or stage name. I found evidence of a name change. — Elsiedoll talk 04:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ysmay is not likely to be anyone's entire original name, granted, but where is the evidence for her real/original name's being Elizabeth Gray? More importantly, where is the evidence of her notability under any name? LadyofShalott 09:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand - there is a fan page that shows up if you look on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/TheRealYsmay if she's being published by Virgin and over 2,000 people recognize her as a person of interest, perhaps she really is. can anybody find out any actual information about her? User:MertylMay
Comment - During the course of this discussion, the article was moved to Ysmay (artist). I have moved it back in accordance with our naming conventions, because no disambiguation is needed. Whatever the consensus here, the redirect should also be noted. LadyofShalott 09:26, 17 August 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 Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark. Courcelles 04:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark

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

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited, of course, not inherited with marriage. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of her wedding alone meets WP:GNG and let's face it she's not invisible outside of the wedding either. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wedding is not a notable event for the purposes of this article. There's a HUGE difference between notable and "not invisible". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge into Prince Nikolaos' article and delete the rest. The Family and early life section can be summarised and merged, the rest is a duplication of content in her husband's article. Nightw 08:08, 10 August 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) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge - into Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, because of lack of independent sources that discuss her specifically. --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge as suggested by Night w; and based on well-reasoned precedent (even if I'm not in 100% agreement). Bearian (talk) 00:48, 23 August 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. It has been suggested that there may be coverage on her in Greek language sources. It would be helpful if someone fluent in Greek could do a search and examine them. However, for the time being this one's a toss up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark

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

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Notability is sometimes inherited because eminence, fame, prominence (and even notoriety) are sometimes functions of the family to which one belongs, and children of kings and members of royal families are examples par excellence. Theodora happens to belong to two such families -- and in the case of Greece, she also belongs to a dynasty which has climbed on and off the throne four times -- each of which was, at the time, declared to be final. FactStraight (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This actress at the beginning of her career simply doesn't seem to be notable (yet? I have no idea). She carries a (misleading) impressive title as a member of a Danish noble family, but that alone doesn't make her notable. There is a tiny amount of stupid royalty-watching reporting w.r.t. her, but per recent precedent [7][8] that doesn't really count. I haven't found anything substantial, but would be prepared to change my opinion if anyone finds substantial coverage as required by WP:GNG.
The redirect from Princess Theodora of Greece should also be deleted, or should be replaced by an article about her relative Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark (1906–1969) or a disambiguation page. Hans Adler 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FactStraight also looking her up under her Greek language name there are artilces on her showing up in sources showing up indicating notability. - dwc lr (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "per FactStraight also looking her up under her Greek language name there are artilces on her showing up in sources" – I don't understand this. Are you referring to a comment by FactStraight? If so, could you please give a precise pointer to it. It doesn't seem to be here or on the article talk page. If she were notable in Greece that would of course be sufficient, but I have seen no evidence that she is. Hans Adler 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks as if he meant to put a comma or period between the words per FactStraight and also. His comment makes sense that way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 30 August 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) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 17 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 23 August 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 shredded. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc-O-Matic

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

I'm unable to find anything that shows notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you look at the various results at Google Book search before nominating? There's a paragraph of coverage here and there by parties other than the company which markets the product. Edison (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this source, does just any piece of software get put in the book? I did consider this source, but I can't see all of it. I, personally do not think that a few paragraphs of cover show notability with not just these book sources, but a couple other ones that I found. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 12 August 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) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from this Microsoft forum link, which I don't believe would apply as notable on Wikipedia.SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 20 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no observable indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 23 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline (band)

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

I could find no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that this band wasn't already represented on Wikipedia. To me, there is no question of notability, but there is regrettably very little info on the band online. I couldn't find any reasons in the rules and guidelines to exclude this subject, but there is a problem with good third-party sources. Is that the main reason for proposed deletion? Please specify what ought to be changed in order to keep the article on Wikipedia. I haven't had any of my articles deleted before, so I'm new to this process. Jaaakesnake (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following pages: WP:RS, WP:BAND, and WP:42. My search for reliable sources was limited only to Google - if there are any mentions of Discipline in a magazine, or a newspaper, that could be notability enough to result in a keep decision. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non-independent sources Jaaakesnake (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the paragraphs of the article, added info on Parmenter's solo career and more sources. Jaaakesnake (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 August 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) 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are mostly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:55, 16 August 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. No consensus to delete was reached in this discussion, nor is there reason in policy to impose one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VIP Parts, Tires and Service

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

Delete per WP:CORP. The claims of notability in the article are insufficient grounds to justify a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article now contains citation that the company is the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England. This is especially important in this day of megastores like Pep Boys and NAPA. Thank you for considering. Hmvont (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Hmvont[reply]
- I don't consider "the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England" to be a sufficiently notable characteristic for inclusion in WP. However, in the absence of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies we have to rely on WP case law (aka deletion discussions!). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excluding the non-independent sources such as the company's own website, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But are they significant? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company has been around for more than 50 years and has more than 50 locations throughout the northeast U.S. Anyone who lives in New England (especially Maine) has either bought tires or auto parts from this company, or knows someone else who has bought from them. Seems like a no-brainer to me. –BMRR (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid argument in an Afd. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's not; nevertheless, this company meets the standard of having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references contained in the article include magazine articles, trade journal articles, and newspaper articles — in other words, reliable secondary sources. I stand by my keep position. Furthermore, if this is an area of Wikipedia policy that you are particularly passionate about, you should take a look at some of the Wikipedia articles pertaining to New Zealand-based retail companies; I was shocked at how many of them are completely lacking references, and I suspect that a few of them would not meet the WP:CORP guidelines. –BMRR (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a quick look at Category:Retail companies of New Zealand and put one of the articles up for speedy deletion. As for WP policy I am concerned at the lack of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Seems kind of WP:MILL.~~ The article tries to establish notability, but I don't think it succeeded. This is not a nationally recognized chain. Per the concerns about WP:CORP, I found a list of the top tire chain Link. The top four have pages, the next six didn't and then I stopped looking. MadCow257 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a conflict between two principles: the GNG, which is adequately met, and a general feeling that the chain is not important enough. I do not know how to resolve it as a general matter, but in this case, being a regional chain is sufficient. I draw the line at local, but requiringnation is too high a bar. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is easy to claim an article about a company meets WP:GNG since there can be plenty of refs for articles about them. The same goes for bio articles, which is why specific notability guidelines exist for such articles. I don't know if it is spelt out in policy but I feel that a specific notability guideline should trump the generic one. And this is why we NEED a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. It will also be a good way of fighting spam, especially the articles that hide under a cloak of apparent neutrality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:06, 24 August 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability by third part sources not established . Sails close to the wind as an advert too. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we trying to build an encyclopaedia or a business directory? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of mentions in passing in independent third party sources, but no significant coverage in them as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the sources are close enough and using IAR, think that a chain of this size is clearly notable. Promotional issues aren't a reason for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:10, 7 September 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.