Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 11

< 10 March	12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAMBDA School of Music and Fine Arts

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

looks like an ad. fails WP:ORG. a non notable private college. 4 gnews hits [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too early to say how, why or whether the place is notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found a few news references - [2], [3], [4] (I don't know any of those publications, so I can't really say if they satisfy WP:RS). Also this looks like some kind of accreditation (but again, I don't know it it's notable). -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable, and the article (and the website too) are woefully lacking in any specifics: how big is it, what ages does it serve, what are the admissions standards? It is called a "school"; LibStar thought it was a "college"; and yet the photos on the website show young children, and the schedule shows classes for all ages from 4 to adult. I could find no indication that the school is accredited (the "accreditation" link Zebedee found is just registration with the Better Business Bureau), and in fact they have their own private program for "accrediting" their teachers. The only media hits are in a small very local paper and a freebie Montreal arts magazine. All in all, it seems to be just a place with with a few classes in music, art, and theater. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Regardless of the fact that they granted permission for the material through OTRS, copying their web pages with no critical commentary is just not on. Additionally, there is only some scant local coverage. That's not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna be a bride

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ~~Just hit the news button above,~~ it has even been covered by the Los Angeles Times! The book is so popular in Egypt and is part of a very popular series of blogs that has been printed in Egypt!--Dyaa (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Take a look here. Scroll down a bit in here and a scan of an article in an Italian newspaper can be also seen (too bad I don't know Italian :)). A youtube video of a TV interview is also visible on the right side bar. It was also a bestseller in Cairo International Book Fair (too bad I can't find a reference for that online). Moreover, the book has its own page in the Arabic Wikipedia (i.e. it is notable in one Wikipedia and should be notable in the other, I don't know if there is a rule for that)!--Dyaa (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– One article does not constitute substantial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in la Repubblica identified above provides significant coverage, as does this from China Central Television. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. More Coverage: BBC News, Washington Post, The Independent, Arab news, The National (UAE), Europa (Italy), Wuz (Italy), Straits Times and Sveriges Radio (Sweden) . This seems to be an issue with the english translation of the book's title. English news articles use different variations of the book's name and hence do not show up in Google immediately. But using the author's name to search in google, produces much coverage in RS. What we have here is a book widely covered/reviewed by mainstream media in Sweden, Singapore, China, Italy, USA, UK, UAE and Egypt. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep AniMate 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoi Island, Indonesia

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

Not notable, uninhabited speck of land with a small, non-notable resort on it. Spam for the resort owners. One of several small islands being hawked here: [5] No evidence of notability. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and fails to establish any notability. Also, the main resources is a commercial website, which is unacceptable. King Ruby (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think all sizeable islands are notable, but I'd like a consensus from the community about this one in particular. I removed the Prod for that reason. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have kept any hamlet which is a dot on a map, without any references other than a government database, in past AFDs. This small island at least has a commercial presence on it verifiable via a guidebook which discusses recreational opportunities on the island, and some coverage on websites about tourism/newspapers at Google News Archive [6]: Time magazine, Times Online, [7] , [8]. Edison (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this qualifies in the same way as a hamlet. There's no evidence that it even had a name before it was developed into a resort. It certainly doesn't appear to have had human habitation. It is only noteworthy because it's a resort, and its notability should be be considered in the same way as any other resort. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSorry that I was unclear. I did not mean that this island is a hamlet, just that if hamlets are notable why not islands, which are real geographic features and not just a dot on the map where a few people once lived. A habitable island which has had significant coverage in major publications seems to satisfy notability. If it were just a motel along the highway or a fishing camp/resort on a lake its notability would be more in question. It does appear to have been a geographic feature before it was a resort, per the appearance of "Nikoi Island" in government publications back to 1944, but only snippet views are available so I cannot rule it being some other "Nikoi Island." See the last 4 hits at Google Book Search:[9]. Maybe someone has access via a research library, or could check an old map. Edison (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Edison's logic. As far as notability goes, I've seen worse(ie tiny Hamlets do abound to mind) Outback the koala (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage found by Edison is significant and is independent of the topic. It is also a verified geographical island.--Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is a real, existing place, and all places are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dew Kane's reasoning. But the article is promotional and needs cleanup. Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

Please take another look, I've done made a series of edits and added references. I've not removed the templates characterizing the problems with this article, although I think some of them no longer apply. The tone is I think much less promotional and I've added references--although they are pretty fluffy, they are better than nothing. Nuujinn (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above and clean-up work and references introduced. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned up some more, happy to keep now. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? this is an Indonesian subject and is not listed there in the Indonesian Afd list - and now we have the nominator happy to keep - please note that process is better when including the project that relates to the subject - specially Indonesian places Satu Suro 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It is listed at the bottom of WP:WikiProject_Indonesia, exactly as it should be.

This is more of a resort than a place btw, although it seems to be notable enough as a resort. Incidentally, I think you could find the same kind of sources (basically hotel reviews) as this article now has for a few other Indonesian resorts: all five of Indonesia's Amanresorts will have reviews in major newspapers, Nihiwatu, on Sumba, definitely. Cubadak island is another in the same category as Nikoi, possibly nearby Sikuai also. I created Bintan Resorts just now. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has improved since nomination. We need to get a location map on there.--Milowent (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya

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

Fundamentally non-neutral article failing WP:NPOV and based in large part of references that fail WP:RS andy (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POVFORK. Bombing of market in Grozny is already described in detail in Grozny ballistic missile attack article. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, the page can still be salvaged, sourced (as is being done now), following the model that many wiki pages have, of describing a category of events, with links to each individual page. There is plenty of ways we could rework the article, deletion, in my mind, would be hasty, unnecessary, and foolish. --Yalens (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to my statement above, alternatively, we could make this a section in another page, the problem is that there is no other page that's really appropriate. This deals with both wars, to start with, and the Geneva Convention aspect (i.e. that Russia has intentionally bombed civilian areas it previously designated as such) is consistently ignored and sidelined on English Wikipedia, and would be thrust to the bottom of a page, when at least I think it deserves much more consideration. Considering we have a whole category for Chechen Terrorist attacks (and a large excess of not-so-neutral articles on them), a considerable amount of which are not exactly proven 100% (and far from it) to actually be attributed to Chechens at all, the notion that keeping this page alive is somehow biased is largely unfounded. In addition: we could also convert this page into the main page for a category of "attacks on humanitarian corridors". In such a sense, we could make it a somewhat minor page with brief summaries of the events, and still make note of the primary point of the article.--Yalens (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is such "category" page already (Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism). Attacks on "humanitarion corridors" are described in great detail in 1999 Grozny refugee convoy shooting and Baku-Rostov highway bombing. There is no reason for duplicating same content in multiple articles under different titles.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important subject, and the article is well sourced. Not a content fork to anything.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. POV fork, and violation of WP:Synthesis. Biophys may insist as long as he wishes that sources are reliable, but these are the sources sharing only one POV which Biophys happens to adavance through ages here in WP. These are only sources which Biophys wants to have in the article. Other views are not considered at all as usual. And add to this the fact that these events were already covered several times in Chechen war artisle and separate articles. Spam and nothing more. Why we need to have one thousand articles with different names about the same event?

Of course, the masterpiece is what is written in the lead - "humanitarian corridor was absent" because... bla-bla-bla. "Bla-bla-bla" is someone's individual POV. Then why this weird name for the article, at all? Call it individual opinion on absence of humanitarian corridors by...

And it is the stupidest thing to think that Chechen bandits sitting in Grozny were allowing their live shield to go in peace from Grozny to safe place. Pregnant women from Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis and Beslan school children, Nord Ost hostages Moscow theater hostage crisis used as a live shield by chechen bandits are the most famous examples. Why this super-mega tactic of chechen terrorists is not described here in detail?

Thirdly, if these sources are really reliable? If activists from any NGO have military education and operative military knowledge of given situation that allows them to make report that has any weight? Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing inherently "POV" in word "attacks", although the article might be renamed Humanitarian corridors in Chechnya. Yes, it must be improved per WP:NPOV. Frequent use of word "Russian" puts it on nationalistic footing. Besides, "Putin began the general bombing" sounds too personal. But this is something to be fixed. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's fixed PDQ it is a reason for deletion. The article is fundamentally POV and also a content fork. There's no reason to keep it. andy (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion. Failing our NPOV standards is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. And there is no any evidence of significant content forking so far.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is reason for deletion.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles about many individual incidents, but we do not have a general article about the attacks in humanitarian corridors. There is nothing wrong to create an umbrella article to briefly summarize the individual cases.Biophys (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism is umbrella article. DonaldDuck (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but [Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism]] is a much wider umbrella article that covers attacks from the both sides, and not only in humanitarian corridors.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a POV fork. LokiiT (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH of several marginally related incidents, even not about actual "humanitarian corridors". Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that there appears to be no Wikipedia article on the general concept of humanitarian corridors, or on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya specifically. Given that, an article that covers Russian attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya seems premature. Isomorphic (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there isn't one, it should certainly be added (though I think it is a section in some other article)... I'd find it rather odd if it didn't exist. --Yalens (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and write a proper article on humanitarian corridors, with balance obtained by talking about more than one situation. The present article is actually more of a general article attacked russian conduct of the war on various grounds. If this isn't covered elsewhere it should be, but this particular article's emphasis is POV anf I do not think it is fixable. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arena club

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

Notability of the venue is not discussed. Article consists largely of a list of performers who have appeared there. No significant coverage of the venue is shown in the references. Frank | talk 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any claim of notability, and the references barely even mention the venue. I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability via a Google search. If the venue is truly notable, then references must be out there, and if someone can find them, I may change my mind. PDCook (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwärmer

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

Pure dictionary definition of German word. However, the wikipedia is not a dictionary; and the English wikipedia especially isn't a dictionary of foreign words. I have already transwikied it to wiktionary, and I'm calling for DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At most this should be a redirect to the religious group it sometimes referred to. Edison (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Not independently notable. — Rankiri (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not notable and fails WP:DICDEF, though a retarget to Anabaptist, the group the term refers to, would probably make sense, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Rje (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego (artist)

Previously CSD A7, unremarkable person. Recreated, with additional (false) information. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Despite claims in the article to being on the Billboard charts for an "astounding 24 weeks," the actual Billboard.com site states the artist has not appeared on the charts yet. The other claims are similarly bogus as far as I can tell, failing WP:HOAX. No independent, verifiable, reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article was deleted again before this AfD was started, so at present it consists of nothing but an AfD notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I noticed that it was deleted while I was posting this. Hopefully it will stay dead this time. Chasing vampires gets tiring... (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - G6'd it already. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Meyer

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

Local "worship leader" at a church. I can't find anything online to indicate that she meets the notability guidelines. Unreferenced BLP. – Toon 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - since it is not clear what is meant by "worship leader"; in some churches that is a deacon, while in others it is a choir director. Bearian (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable (GregJackP (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Not notable.--SuperHappyPerson (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Delete - Found this event announcement, but that's it. No reliable sources to establish ntoability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete AniMate 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of disgraced United States politicians

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

I'm really not sure on this one, but it merits some discussion. It appears to me to be a list calling these people "disgraced" with no commentary and minimal sourcing. As it is, there are redlinks on here with no sources at all, additions that are POV- is Clinton "disgraced"?

This list might be salvagable, but right now it's a BLP minefield. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of OR (who gets to decide what makes a politician "disgraced"? Should someone is full of bullshit, like Minnesota's Michele Bachmann a disgrace? What about someone who quits halfway through their term and is just an embarrassment to everyone, like Sarah Palin?). TJ Spyke 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is fundamental violation of core policies: OR, BLP, etc. There may be room for a list of politicians who have resigned because of, say, criminal investigations - that's verifiable. But the third and widest criteria for this list "resigned in disgrace" is not verifiable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we want such an article, we already have Political scandals of the United States which could serve such a purpose. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original research and BLP issues are, well, disgraceful. Reach Out to the Truth 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 9001 valid reasons to delete this article, but for some reason I believe that no elaboration is even necessary. — C M B J 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. It would be nearly impossible to source this and get it right per NPV. Waiting on a fight for what the mean of "disgraced" is. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOV. I am not a crook and I did not have sexual relations with that woman. — Rankiri (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a vandal magnet with no rationale for existence. While I am a mergetarian, and a redirect to Political scandals of the United States may be a easy way out, this is an unlikely search term. If kept, the definition of the list needs to be clarified. Bearian (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure whether everyone above has examined the actual article. The qualification are listed very explicitly "have been convicted of crimes, removed by impeachment, or who have resigned in disgrace." -- this last phrase does need a little qualification, resigned in disgrace needs to be explained as resigned while under reliably reported threat of criminal charge or impeachment. The very broad interpretation suggested by TJS is not the one used in the article. At worst, we certainly could have lists of those who were impeached, we could also have a list of those convicted or indicted while in office, or before or afterwards. Those would not be POV, and would have very clear RSs. These would be useful rearrangements of the data in the other article suggested, going back more systematically I can see doing it as a sortable table by name, state , position, charge, and result. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to support the creation of List of impeached United States politicians, List of convicted United States politicians, and List of resigned United States politicians. — C M B J 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term politician is problematic. Lester Crawford, for example, is not a politician but a veterinarian. Also keep in mind that we have Category:Impeached United States officials, Impeachment in the United States, Category:Politicians convicted of crimes, Category:Political corruption investigations in the United States, Category:People acquitted of corruption, political scandals of the United States. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word disgraced was actually what caught my attention as most problematic, but you make a very good point. I see that Crawford is in Category:American government officials convicted of crimes. — C M B J 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no neutral definition of what constitutes "disgrace". Criminal convictions aren't always a disgrace (for example, civil disobedience). Removal from office isn't always disgraceful either, since they're often removed by political opponents. "Resigned in disgrace" is a circular definition. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G2L

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

At first I thought this was a hoax due to its similarity to the Lady Lashes and Heather Vesey pages that keep being recreated, and this was created by the hoaxer, but G2L do seem to exist, or at least Bubbel G (their claimed former name) does. But regardless, they're clearly not notable and fail WP:MUSICBIO. anemoneprojectors talk 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another MySpace band. The subject of the article is a thoroughly non-notable girl-group that has yet to release its first album. I recommend deleting and abstaining from re-creation until such time when notability under WP:N and WP:BAND is achieved. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P. Paul Verma

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

Contested WP:PROD. I can find no online reliable sources in the Latin alphabet about this Indian film director, but then, again, I don't have access to Indian print sources and can't read Punjabi or Hindi so someone might be able to come up with something. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only person contesting this prod at this point is you. The PROD should have remained... especially if you couldn't find any sources yourself for this article. This is nothing but further process wonkery, and abuse of the IAR system. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has seeking consensus been an abuse of anything? There is nothing remotely capable of doing anyone any harm in this article, so WP:BLP (in its spirit) is not a reason to ignore procedures agreed by consensus. Just because you bully one editor into submission it doesn't mean that we will all put up with the same treatment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability due to lack of sources. As an aside, Coffee, please remember to be civil. No one is going to die as a result of bringing this to AfD, and User:Shawn in Montreal is the one who contested the PROD (see this diff), so please check the facts before berating other users. Quoting from WP:PROD
If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.
Thanks! — Joshua Scott (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prod-der. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a lengthy and fruitless search. The lede begins "P. Paul Verma is a well known Indian film director, film producer, screenwriter, and screen play and dialogue writer..."... but if that were actually true we'd be able to find at least something about the fellow, and I am unable to source the individual or any of his films. Since it cannot be even WP:Verified, the lede becomes unsourcable hyperbole. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Soble

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

Delete. Subject would appear to fail general notability guidelines due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Searching Google News yields exactly zero matches by this name. [10] JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. Doesn't pass the google test. Can't find anyone that even mentions his books and many are out of print. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per later comments that show sources. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Google has more than nothing, and GS show cites to his books. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obvious and overwhelming notability. Bad faith nomination solely as part of wikistalking by editor deleting all articles I have created or worked on substantially. Soble is very widely published in the particular topic of "Philosophy of Sex and Love" (one of fewer than half-dozen top experts in the relatively narrow field), is past president of society so-named, journal editors, etc. LotLE×talk 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple books from major university presses, enough to establish as an authority in his subject. Books reviewed in such academic sources as Annals of Sexual Behavior, and such popular ones as the Chicago Tribune Meets WP:PROF. . I can;t see how the nom found nothing in Google News, unless he just searched the current part instead of Google News Archive--including those book reviews I mentioned--see above. That a scholar's (or anyone's) books are out of print is irrelevant, as notability is permanent, and GScholar shows plenty of mentions: I see 531 listings in the Google Scholar search, including dozens of citations of many of his books. I would prefer to think this a careless rather than a bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF and cite. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There certainly are sources in the Google news archives [11]. AniMate 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable GS cites. Did the nominator not find these? Subject appears to be acknowledged authority on subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Extensive sourcing available via Google Books as well: [12].--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The blanking followed by AfD nom seems particularly confrontational. Was anything removed that was an exceptional claim not verifiable from the bio potsed on the talkpage or in reliable sources? I had no issue finding hundreds of books and dozens of Gnews hits. This suggests GNG is easily met and being cited as noted above in numerous papers and books also suggests he is considered important in his field. This seems liek WP:Before was ignored and all issues can be resolved through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 09:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I, too, am disturbed by editors (not only the nominator) removing technically unsourced but potentially sourcable material from the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I've noted this strange approach during efforts of WP:COMPOSERS to verify their unreferenced BLPs, these "invisible" changes (removing of uncontentious material) sometimes made the searching more complicated.[13] To some extent I understand, this is a more amusing way of editing than searching for reliable sources and verifying the content of articles - you provoke action, attention and controversy, and the responsibility for your actions is shielded by a guideline or some statements by founder of Wikipedia. You have the right to do so. That's all you need. This is far easier than thankless, complicated and slow searching. If you add sources and remove the unrefBLP template, hardly anyone will notice your action, and moreover, it costs you more time. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Careless nom. All it would've took was a little extra effort to find sources. -- œ ^™ 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's call a spade a spade: this looks like a bad-faith nomination. The silence of the nominator tells a story too. I suggest a snow keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. I second Xxanthippe's motion for snow keep – even cursory searching shows that his books are very widely held by institutions and that his research publications have substantial citations. This is a slam-dunk on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reed McLaughlin

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

only substantial claim of notability is the student emmy, I'm having problems finding reliable sources backing this up. Only mention of this are primary sources such as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. RadioFan (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would push this for a speedy delete normally. No notability. Created by a SPA with the same of the page with most of the content. Not written in 3rd person and seems to vent. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Uncertain There seems to be another film also, Of Love & Betrayal, which has a Wikipedia article. whether it is notable enough for oneI do not know, but since it's linked in the article, it's a little odd that neither the nom or the previous comment mentioned it. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual seems to have made only the one film [14], but it won no awards and has no sourcable notability... else I'd have suggested a redirect. As 'Sterling Drake' the individual appears to have penned some books, but sourcable notability is lacking there as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cara A

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

Non-notable artist. While references are given, none of them other than the artist's own pages at edicypages.com (a self-publishing site) actually refer to this artist. Even the image that is used is a generic image of artwork from a museum, not the artist's own work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Saw this on the new article page and does seem to claim notability, but its claims don't pan out; it is obviously harder to establish somebody as notable when they have a hidden identity.--YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by the nominator, none of the citations from third-party sources actually mention the artist, establish that her art has been exhibited where the article says it has, or establish the notability of the work. If readers simply look at the article and don't check the cites, it may give the illusion of notability. --JamesAM (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:N: lack of suitable sources. Ty 19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem ready for an encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[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) 02:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Destroyers (Daleks)

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

the first episode to a spin-off which was never filmed? We know nothing for this but the cost; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt filmed because Terry couldn't find a stainable TV station who would pay for the other half of the $44,00. As a great man once said to me 'One day i shall come back. Yes, i shall come back until then there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties, just go forward in all your Believes and prove to me that i am not mistaken in mine' (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeepsi (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful comment. Tell him to use a dishcloth next time. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed episode of a TV show that never happened. Unsourced, terribly written, and no indications of notability (yes I know that poorly written is not grounds for deletion, I am just pointed it out). TJ Spyke 21:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the title I assumed this was a Dr. Who episode, which might well be notable. However, this is an unproduced spin-off without even (apparently) a pilot episode. There are also no sources for the content, which would require an extensive rewrite to become encyclopedic. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently there's a featurette on it.[15] I bet that it's notable, but I don't know, so I'll just comment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP There is indeed consensus that a great many of these proverbal phrases are sourceable and thus not contrary to WP:OR. Additionally since there are editors willing to improve the article, noms reason is insufficient to delete article. Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of proverbial phrases

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

Pure WP:OR, this article is totally un-referenceable. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not that sure about WP:OR, but it looks like a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. — Rankiri (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this duplicates the function of wikiquote:English proverbs and IIRC, VfD transwikied the proverbs to Wikiquote years ago. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rankiri. This isn't so much WP:OR or prod-able, yet is sort of a violation of WP:NOTDIR. It think it's just a non-notable and random list. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am quite prepared to reference every item, and throw out the ones I cannot find. It will of course take a while to finish. There are dozens of sources for this material. The problem is going to be the selection: I could take a selection from some standard source, but it is rather hard to figure out how to do that without copyvio. The best I can come up with to to take those that appear in several of the standard sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict to phrases with encylopedic origins, like don't count your chickens before they hatch. Polarpanda (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea. See Category:English proverbs, Category:Chinese proverbs and Category:Proverbs. — Rankiri (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Polarpanda and DGG above - the original research appears fixable with sourcing. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I agree this doesn't seem like a notable article however I always hate to destroy information for the sake of adhering to a rule. Is there some place that this could find a home? HalifaxRage (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with HalifaxRage. The article is not encyclopedic, not referenced, basically original research, so doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But someone put a LOT of work into this - the most thorough such list I have ever seen. Is there some other Wiki-related place where it could be transferred? --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/English_proverbs ? By the way, as much as I like Polarpanda's proposal, the current version of the list has absolutely nothing to do with it. I see no reason to change my earlier vote. — Rankiri (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since others have expressed their willingness to clean it up. It could pass with a bit of work, and I don't mind pitching in. Airplaneman ^talk 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax per WP:G3 and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniscience

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

I wanted to speedy delete it, but don't know under what basis. There are already articles on Wikipedia which contain info on the attempts at the unification of the foundamental forces for example. And + the article title is bogus. Don't know what can be salvaged..., nothing... RobertMel (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOTDIC, WP:MADEUP and probably WP:OR. PDCook (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add WP:BOLLOCKS to the list, for: "Such a model would be required to truly understand theories such as Intelligent Design" -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I haven't seen the WP:BOLLOCKS essay. Very nice! PDCook (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all above and probably also Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Suggest WP:SNOW closure. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have tried speedy deletion under nonsense, but I thought this was reserved to more obvious nonsense. Having to submit it for deletion is ridiculous, I don't see who in his right mind could vote keep. It was either this or requesting deletion vis WP:PROD, but giving 7 days is also ridiculous. -RobertMel (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete : WP:G3. See [16]. — Rankiri (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted it. I should have tried that prior to wasting others time. Sorry -RobertMel (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia's multiple worlds

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

Delete, subject fails general notability guidelines JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing much coverage in reliable sources, though it's always possible I'm missing something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a close call since the "Keep" "votes" make a cogent case for notability despite the lack of sources cited by the "Delete" "voters". However, in light of the whole discussion, and bearing in mind the heightened sourcing concerns surrounding biographies of living people, I believe that a rough consensus to delete has been formed. This consensus is not that she is irredeemable non-notable and will hond only unless (or until) reliable sources about (rather than written or edited by) her are available. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Watkins

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

Delete, subject is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. The journal is notable, but the editor is not without non-trivial coverage of her. Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some citations: This search on the London Review of Books archive [17] turns up 3 articles by Watkins and one review by Christopher Hitchins of a book co-written by her. A Google search also turns up this review of that co-written book by Sheila Rowbotham: [18]. In addition, her 2004 article in New Left Review A Weightless Hegemony shows up on Google Scholar with 13 citations. In sum I see this as indicating retention. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a several hits in major news publications. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are the reviews of her co-authored book and citations to one article enough to consider her widely-cited per WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean; I had originally been adding the citations above with a "Comment" tag. But then looking at them as a whole, and also taking account of the Feb 2010 Guardian article discussing her recent NLR editorial (published prominently across two pages) - see Ref added to the Watkins article - I assessed them as rendering deletion unreasonable and therefore put a "keep" caption. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's close. Obviously, if WP:ACADEMIC #8 applied, it'd be an easy keep. But I don't think it really does in this case with this journal. And the citations are not really about her which would get her in via general notability. I'd go along if several of her articles had dozens of citations indicating academics and scholars acknowledge her (even if the press hasn't covered her). But without citations more directly related to or about her, I still lean somewhere between weak delete and delete. I'd be curious if anybody could link to AfDs of keeps or deletes in simiar cases. That might clarify it one way or the other (or just muddy things!). Novaseminary (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being editor of New Left Review (in particular for such a long time, since 2003) is notable. Editors are often low profile but high impact as they decide what gets published, and NLR is a notable publication. Editors are sort of like movie directors, even though not directly acting in the film, they direct what gets put into the film. It's a powerful, creative and influential position. If WP doesn't have specific rules for editors it should. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, or meeting WP:AUTHOR. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it isn't possible to have a reliable article about the subject. Accordingly, at this stage, deletion is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Airplaneman ^talk 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Caux

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

Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject might otherwise meet the GNG. No significant roles (no named characters). While Lara Croft might be a notable role, subject played an unnamed minor character wearing a Lara Croft costume at a Halloween party. Original prod removed by an account now blocked as an abusive sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as career does not even sneak up on WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit-part actress. Maybe notable someday, but not now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to The Threeep. I'll redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Threeep

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

Not sure what to make of this article about a multi-release project by a notable band. There are actually three different releases, one of which has happened, but the others raise issues with WP:CRYSTAL at this time. The three-release project has been mentioned in a few minor music magazines which might help with the notability question under WP:NALBUMS. For now I recommend Merge/Redirect to Matt Pond PA until after the whole project is complete and it achieves notability in total. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the same reason, I recommend the same merge/redirect for these associated EP articles:

DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Threeep And if there is enough material/sources to justify splitting, then split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to The Threeep for now, keeping the redirects. When more sources and content can be found, they can be split once more. Airplaneman ^talk 19:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maged N. Kamel Boulos

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

I closed the previous AfD as speedy delete due to copyright violation which has now been cleared up. However, it's not clear to me that this man is notable. A number of news articles have been cited, but they're all stories about other things which include a quote by Boulos on the subject. Most are just a line or two - the longest is a couple of paragraphs, but still not significant coverage of the man himself. A notability tag has been added and removed a couple of times, so instead of letting that continue I thought I'd bring it here to establish consensus one way or the other. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case the above was too hand-wavey to be clear: I am in favour of deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article claims that he's the ed-in-chief of a BMC journal (a major publisher of biomedical journals) and this page confirms. Satisfies WP:PROF #8 explicitly. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'll happily confess that I'm in no position to judge whether the journal's "major [and] well-established" but I'm willing to believe it is if you reckon so. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a keep to me, per Agricola44 and WP:GNG. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With an h index of 12 from GS cites plus the editorship and media mentions. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth (Saint Seiya)

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

Non-notable topic about a fictional concept that doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Based entirely on primary sources and original research. Also violates What Wikipedia is not. Original prod was disputed by article's creator. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article is useful to help those who are not familiar with the Saint Seiya universe. It is one of Masami Kurumada's most popular works, not only in Japan but in the world, and the author is well-known worldwide. Also, the concept of Cloth is very important in Saint Seiya, it is recurrent and very frequent within all Saint Seiya related articles, so many readers may become confused if they dont have an article that explains what Cloths are. Lastly, the article is almost finished, it wont become much longer than it is now, so I guess there's no reason to fear it can become fancruft, i have written it using only what is notable and leaving out any minor details. If more references from third parties are needed, then they will be added. Thanks for your attention.Onikiri (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Usefulness or interesting are not acceptable arguments to keep an article that clearly conflicts with many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The content of the article is based on a synthesis with personal interpretations thrown in here and there, which are forms of original research. There are also no third-party references on this fictional element, which is a requirement for all articles. Nor is the popularity or notability of the series as a whole inherited by the fictional elements or characters of the series. —Farix (t | c) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable fictional clothing/armor type. Easily explained in a single sentence, as needed, in the main articles. Purely WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and a violation of WP:NOT. The one non-primary source appears to be a WP:COPYRIGHT violating site. Absolutely no significant coverage of this "concept" in any reliable, third-party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the minimum standards for inclusion. Please consider using Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 to create new articles in the future. It will keep this from happening again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Not notable. The popularity and notability of the work, author and universe is not a justification for excessively detailed fan essays that fail guidelines and policys. I don't see how the lack of this article will make the other articles difficult to understand. Even if that were the case, it can be explained with a sentence or two where appropriate.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rita's Water Ice

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

Virtually no independent reliable sources. Prior deletion via AfD, but unsure that this is substantially similar. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient sources. SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fixing malformed AfD: this was originally pointed at "Rita's Water Ice (2nd nomination)". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a google search for "Rita's Italian Ice" brings up 926,000 results. I'm sure if you looked harder, you could find a few sources that are up to Wikipedia standards. The article needs proper sourcing, not deleting. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the Baron. Rita's is very well-known chain with a lot of history, and that can be found in many reliable sources. Article simply needs improvement, not deletion, and the team is already at work. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I can Google too. However, I found a whole boatload of sites for individual Rita's stores, several business districts and malls that have Rita's in them and such. I found just two newspaper articles, both of them merely mentioning that Rita's had opened despite the snow (the rest of both articles were unrelated material about the snow slowing the city down). Saying there might be sources does not demonstrate that there should be an article. "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - WP:RS - SummerPhD (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Could only find one non-trivial, secondary coverage in Google News. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have substantially referenced the products section and wikified the remaining references. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia is not Rita's menu. I removed most of that previously as trivial information. Sourcing various portions of the article to various publications by the company would remove disputes about the content, but does not address the lack of independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not familiar with them, since i'm on the west coast, but surely a chain with 500 franchises has to be a LITTLE bit notable! They do seem to make the news with their tradition of giving away freebies on the first day of spring and their Dog Days of Summer promotion. The purchase of Rita's by McKnight was noted many places, for example here, here, here and here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Calvin College. I'll redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Compass

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

I think this college television program fails WP:N. Searching for "Inner Compass" & PBS and "Inner Compass" & Calvin (the college that produces the show) brings up zero hits on Google News. In addition, as evidenced by its edit history, this page was created and edited by editors with an apparent conflict of interest. Alternatively, a sentence or two might be appropriate in the Calvin College article with this article redirecting there. Novaseminary (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Compass is a nationally syndicated television show which reaches markets totaling 33 million viewers, including the nations largest markets New York and L.A. This isn't just a small local television show. Its run for 10 seasons now and viewership is ever increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.55.210 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether it is a small local program or not, Wikipedia requires reliable sources to prove notability. The analysis here is not at all about whether the program is worthwhile or high quality (in fact, many low or no quality programs are notable for wikipedia purposes!). It is also not a reflection on whether the show will become notable at a later date. I would note that the IP address of the editor of the comment above is registered to Calvin College, the producer of this program, as are the other IP addresses that have edited this article (153.106.56.54 & 153.106.60.145). And the other two named editors with non-minimal edits (other than me) seem to have a COI (Videocalvinedu admitted as much here and Perfekte21welle's edit history strongly suggests one), meaning all of the non-trivial editors of this article to date potentially have a COI. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the article is not notable or that any particular edits are bad, but it doesn't help the case that the subject of the article is notable. Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I also think this fails the more specific television program notability guidelines. In particular, "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." Novaseminary (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the least merge into Calvin College, but that article is quite large already.--Pink Bull 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calvin College, where it deserves a mention in a section. Airplaneman ^talk 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 of http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Congo-Kinshasa_native.html So Why 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Kuba

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

No encyclopedic content. No sources or references to speak of anyway. Almost all pages linked are redlinks. Outback the koala (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability. No sources given - could be pure WP:OR for all we know. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12, so tagged. WP:BEFORE, anyone? I found the "sources" in a flash. --Pgallert (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe ragona

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

Indications of notability (claims of nobility; title of Count palatine) cannot be verified. Lots of name dropping in this article, but no verifiability that this person is in any way related to those people. Request for references has gone unanswered. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. No sources given. Could even be WP:CB for all we know. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable. I found exactly one Google news hit for this name, [19]. It's in Italian and it seems to be an article about the Mafia, in which Ragona is referred to in passing as a "man of honor". There is also a scientist by this name, clearly someone else. Otherwise, nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Today

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

The notability is in doubt and the content could be condensed down. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Numerous sources available to exapand and improve the stub [20] [21] [22]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. If anything, there is a rough consensus below that some of this content should be kept but uncertainty about whether a stand-alone article is better or a merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm

AfDs for this article:

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

This article may fail to meet the notability requirements though Joe Phillips is a well established and notable gay / gay erotic cartoonist. Recently raised for PROD by another editor, I have converted to AfD for wider discussion. Ash (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary says "(Convert to an AfD rather than PROD due to new sources being found fairly easily)". If you don't believe it should be deleted through Prod, then you don't send it to the AFD instead. That doesn't make any sense. Only nominate something you believe should be deleted. Dream Focus 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new source was to substantiate the award nomination. The fact that this nomination existed was already in the article that was PRODded. Nominations where the nominator is neutral are common practice. In this case I have upgraded the PROD to an AfD nomination in order to ensure wider discussion. Ash (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not seeing any strong sources to support GNG, since the author is certainly notable a merge to the main article would seem to make the most sense for now. -- Banjeboi 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing to Keep as noted below this seems to be the first American "fully-rendered and unsensored gay pornographic feature film". AfD should be kept open to allow this to be sourced or closed allowing article to be renomed at a later date if needed. -- Banjeboi 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AVN/GayVN has long-standing consensus as notability for a pornographic film. -- AvatarMN (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The film didn't win anything and there is no consensus that a single nomination confers notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletionism is the death of civility and participation in Wikipedia. So much talent is driven away by the pain it inflicts. It's the reason I virtually hate it here. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - With no insult intended, perhaps you should find something more enjoyable and rewarding to do with your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
      - With no insult intended, what kind of person finds deleting other peoples' work an enjoyable and rewarding way to spend their time? In fact, I do barely spend any time here as an editor anymore, only as a user. I got notified of this AfD. It's one of the few surviving articles I did a lot of work on, but apparently not for very much longer. There are people who almost exclusively "contribute" to Wikipedia in a deletionist capacity, I wish there could be a rule that people had to use more edits creating than destroying. But that's just me, I guess. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure you aren't the only person who feels that way, but your view is at odds with the general consensus so you are setting yourself up for episodes such as this where you are going to feel frustrated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said... I do very little editing anymore. I worked on this article years ago, and only know about the AfD because I was notified on my talk page. I visit Wikipedia as a user, though much less than I used to since two or three deletionists nuked thousands of anime-related articles. I have taken myself out of the frustration game, but deletionism is still haunting me via notices to my talk page. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that this content belongs in the illustrator's article in a much abbreviated form. I was the editor who prodded the article, so feel free to take this as a delete vote. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Joe Phillips. Notability is questionable.--Pink Bull 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per AvatarMN. This article is well-written and harmless and gets about 500 pageviews per month. Meets GNG for an obscure animated film that appeals to a minority. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's GNG? I'm interested in anything that can save niche articles, I'd love to hear more. Also this subject gets 8200 Google hits. Notability may be scant among the majority, but there is great value to notability to a minority group (where this subject is very notable). It seems to me there's a discrimination argument to be made against deleting. 500 Wikipedia page views a month, 8200 Google hits... not notable to you /= not notable. -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG, is general notability guideline - in essence we presume a subject to be notable once a threshold of independent reliable sources are found. These issues remain subjective but the spirit remains the same that they likely are notable even if the article doesn't yet include those sources and the article doesn't spell out how the subject is notable. Those are regular editing issues which are fixable. If no sources are available or no indication of notability can be reasonably shown then the issues are not fixable, at least not yet. In this case it seems the sources aren't readily available (although they may exist) but neither do we have to delete since the author's article can house any usable content. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally do Adf for films so did not know the exact guideline. WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability #1 and #2 and some basic common sense that this article adds to Wikipedia's educational value without any other major issues WP:SENSE. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability, this film is indeed a big part of the notable person Joe Phillips' career. And it has the unique accomplishment of being the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film (to date, only Pirate's Booty has followed it). Phillips' The House of Morecock was crudely and simply rendered in Flash. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film"? If so I would say source that and keep. -- Banjeboi 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Japanese did it before it in cell animation. But with the exception of Sensitive Pornograph (which came before S&R:TUO) it's all been soft-core or censored, and S&R:TUO is certainly not that. So I guess "first fully-rendered, unsensored, American gay pornographic feature film"? Er, is that getting a little too specific? So far only one other video ticks all those boxes is Pirate's Booty (released after S&R:TUO). I'm having a hard time finding a source for this, I just know because I've been paying close attention for a couple decades, having an acute interest in the very small world of gay animated porn, and I know my claim to be true. So that may go down as frakking original research... It's just a genre so small and so new that it's maybe not been discussed by what Wikipedia would call reliable sources yet. There's an eventualist argument to be made for it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that argument is that this will be regarded a genre starter in the future? - Stillwaterising (talk)

Well being the first American one in a confluence of emerging industries suggests yes. Maybe contact Joe Phillips and simply ask what media coverage exists? -- Banjeboi 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pirate's Booty has already copied it. And Phillips is at work on a new film. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody tried looking for Japanese sources? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for citations? Myself, I don't read Japanese. Would Japanese sources be acceptable citations to satisfy notability and verifiability for English Wikipedia? I follow English-speaking yaoi fandom, and am satisfied that I know about all the videos that come out. But fansites aren't considered reliable sources. I think the day is coming when Wikipedia may need to rethink its reliable sources rules, in this era where professional media is dying and there really isn't much in the way of professional, neutral publications. And the lack of such doesn't mean nothing new is notable, and information about it is not verifiable. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in other languages are certainly acceptable. If possible offering translations is helpful to other editors and readers looking through the refs. Some fansites may be reliable if they show a standard that meets RS, I think specifically that they show editorial control and fact-checking. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - needs cleanup, but I think the subject has established enough notability to warrant a separate article. Airplaneman ^talk 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: copyright violation, and no content other than advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Avillion Holiday Apartments Complex (Apart-Hotel)

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

This is almost entirely advertising- although I don't think it's enough for csd. E2eamon (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 (copyvio). So tagged. G11 is a maybe, but either way, it's gotta go now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Kirillova

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

Prod contested by creator. There's nothing in her competition history that indicates this woman has played at the level required by WP:ATHLETE Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nonnotable athlete (even not very pretty). Timurite (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you said on my talk page, I have no clue how a subjective opinion on another person's appearance matters one whit under WP:ATHLETE. I don't think that's the level of discourse we want to engage ourselves in. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A person may be a lousy athlete but may be notable in other respects and hence deserve an article. My "subjective opinion" is that she is not. And I have to clue why my subjective opinion is less desereving than yours. Timurite (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is disgusting that you would mention someones appearance in a vote debating their notability. Just thought you should know. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She is a professional athlete. The question is whether she is really competing at the highest level of her sport. Her tournament activity shows competing at low level events. Her best WTA ranking is 1010. That's not exactly up there. She is mentioned in various news reports about junior tournaments like this. Altogether, this doesn't meet the guidelines for notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is successful as a junior, see here for her junior activity. She has won 5 Grade A junior titles [23] (also please refer to the first link) and was part of the Russian Fed Cup and Helvetie Cup winning team, here and here. She's also successful in doubles, reaching the semi-finals in the prestigious junior Grand Slam twice (Wimbledon & Roland Garros) [24]. She has beaten many notable players in the junior circuit including Noppawan Lertcheewakarn, Laura Robson, Ajla Tomljanović and Timea Babos (please refer to here, change player activity from 2009 - 2010 to 2006 - 2010). Her low ranking can be explained, she doesn't play many WTA tournament, no ranking points for junior tournament that she competes in, no matter how many titles that she wins. According to here (View activity by year - 2009), she has beaten quite a number of higher ranked player including 1 in the top 500. It will also be a bit tough to find western coverage for a Russian player. Help should be requested at WP:RUSSIA. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has played in the following tournaments: 2009 Australian Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 Australian Open – Girls' Doubles, 2009 French Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 French Open – Girls' Doubles, 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles, 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Doubles, 2009 US Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 US Open – Girls' Doubles, 2010 Australian Open – Girls' Singles and 2010 Australian Open – Girls' Doubles. And with this the article meets WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All juniors competitions- not the highest level of competition in tennis- or fully professional. She has never been in the main draw at a Grand Slam. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has significant coverage in the media. Here is a small sample. BBC Sport Guardian AP article at CBS News Telegraph Montreal Gazette Repo-Box (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is only mentioned in passing by media sources. Coverage is not significant.--Pink Bull 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bradjamesbrown. None of the sources mentioned by Repo-Box have what I would consider significant coverage of the subject, and some of them have barely one sentence about her. If the subject achieves more as an athlete at the main adult level, beyond the junior level where she has mostly been competing so far, the article can be re-created at at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Im mostly confirming with Whpq on this one. Shes professional no doubt about that. Her Tournamnets that shes participated in arent the best and that makes my keep a weak one. If consesnus steers deletion I have no objection towards that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I guess we waffle to different sides on this one. In looking at her tournaments, I've tried gauge using top level. Even for the WTA, there's top level tournaments, and minor ones, and as far as I can tell, for the senior circuit events, she's only been at a few of the decidedly minor ones. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior level athletes are not inherently notable; they do not meet WP:ATH. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources to make up for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only mentions are in passing, does not rise up to WP:ATHLETE either. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedurally closed- wrong forum, wrong page nominated. Now listed here. Non admin closure. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USSFD2

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

I created it because I couldn't include the pods in the other template. The other template now includes the pods and this is no longer required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-template redirected to the main template and I didn't notice that I was requesting the deletion of the main template. Sorry for the confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ramaraaja

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

Ramaraaja is a yoga teacher who claims to have some revolutionary new methods. However, with two exceptions, the only sources for information about her are self-published ones—her books, her website, etc. There is an anonymous book review mentioned in the article, and there is also a story about her published by Kansas City Wellness Magazine. Accordingly, even if we look at the WP:BIO specific criterion for being innovative in her field, nothing demonstrates that she's received any reaching accolades from her peers for her work. Accordingly, the article does not meet the notability requirements, either specifically for a biography or generally, due to the lack of reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, there are changes in the article that offer proof to the 'revolutionary' NEW methods but I am having trouble with saving due to 'citing' errors. I am using the format of citing of the notes that you put at the bottom to no avail. It will not let me save these changes. There are two new references but I cannot get them in? What do I do? Kundun95 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues relating to the construction of the article go on Talk:Swami Ramaraaja. However, the only apparently independent source, a history of the First Spiritualist Church, is only adding a support point about somebody Ramaraaja trained with and does not demonstrate notability of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are rejecting the Mende article then? And the Warner 'Initiation' article?

You need to be more clear. If you are only open to receiving ref matl from certain sources that Wiki is personally 'desiring' then you need to let me check in those places - if not, what is the problem with the third party neutral sources that you have gotten. I need to know how many will suffice otherwise I, nor other editors can produce what is 'desired' or needed. The 'quota' should have been advertised before this process had ever began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundun95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also... I need to know how many will suffice otherwise I, nor other editors can produce what is 'desired' or needed. The 'quota' should have been advertised before this process had ever began. Not only that, your system is faulty and will not allow me to put the references where they are supposed to go and I cannot figure it out thus far. The whole point is mute on notability if your 'system' allowed me to put the sources where they are supposed to go into the article. No one reading it can match things up properly. Do you understand?Kundun95 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To C.Fred This is incorrect what you say in your statement above and SHOWS that you are not aware enough to judge this page appropriately and to move for it's deletion.

":Issues relating to the construction of the article go on Talk:Swami Ramaraaja.

However, the only apparently independent source, a history of the First Spiritualist Church, is only adding a support point about somebody Ramaraaja trained with and does not demonstrate notability of the subject." —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Davis was an expert (Spiritualist Church), she taught Elinore Hill who taught Swami Ramaraaja and both come from the Theosophical Societies lineage dating back to Ramacharaka and Madame Blavatsky. You may be a great Wiki editor for some articles, but unfortunately not this one...In the spiritual FIELD OF STUDY, WHO YOU STUDY WITH IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE SPIRITUAL FIELDS!!! Not only that, but your 'abilities' and 'levels' of enlightenment and 'awareness'. Both of which are validated in this article on Swami Ramaraaja IN SPADES!!! Swami Ramaraaja denotes 'notability' because of the lineage that she came from, not to mention her abilities, awareness and level of enlightenment - which there is at least one strong defense for within this article - MENDE. Then, she went and came up with her own things that are unique in her field. Aren't you 'aware' of all of this????? This is a troubling conversation, now that I realize what has been in your mind, and now it all makes sense why this person will never be approved by you personally or Wiki. All of these comments which I will be forwarding on to other people who are both in and out of Wiki, show the unfairness and lack of knowledge that the writers have who are writing and critiquing 'spiritual' individuals. If you have not done an in depth study of Spiritual leaders and what they have gone through to get where they are then NO editor can sit here and judge them for deletion, period, and that is what I see happening. Your comments show that you cannot fairly and indiscriminately approve or disapprove of this article. I cannot state my case any more clear. This has to become a 'level' playing field for FAIRNESS to take hold, as now it is not and I am going to let others know about this experience with Wiki. You can delete this person, but only to be embarrassed later when you realize how unique, qualified=notable (in the 'spiritual' field) she is.65.31.193.198 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) We are still working on this article.[reply]

In the defense of Swami Ramaraaja per information/relevance in her article and references...

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE..."Spiritual leader is a form of title that is used to refer to religious leaders.In Buddhism, spiritual leaders are usually the people who have attained high level of spiritual awareness. Those spiritual teachers can guide people on their path toward spiritual awakening".

This is what Swami Ramaraaja does - CHECK THE REFS Read them again. All Swami's are completely commited to the path of Self-Realization and helping others and THIS IS NOTABLE!! Also...from the FREE DICTIONARY... spiritual leader - a leader in religious or sacred affairs leader - a person who rules or guides or inspires others hazan, cantor - the official of a synagogue who conducts the liturgical part of the service and sings or chants the prayers intended to be performed as solos Catholicos - the ecclesiastical title of the leaders of the Nestorian and Armenian churches clergyman, man of the cloth, reverend - a member of the clergy and a spiritual leader of the Christian Church Evangelist - (when capitalized) any of the spiritual leaders who are assumed to be authors of the Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John patriarch - title for the heads of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (in Istanbul and Alexandria and Moscow and Jerusalem) Bishop of Rome, Catholic Pope, Holy Father, pontiff, pope, Roman Catholic Pope, Vicar of Christ - the head of the Roman Catholic Church non-Christian priest, priest - a person who performs religious duties and ceremonies in a non-Christian religion rabbi - spiritual leader of a Jewish congregation; qualified to expound and apply Jewish law

Also check out the WIKI ARTICLE ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. William James, Abraham Maslow to name a few.... Peak Experiences and 'Cosmic Consciousness' are NOTABLE experiences and required in the life of any Spiritual Leader. Also check out the WIKI ARTICLE ON DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL... Swami Ramaraaja St John of the Cross, Mother Theresa, St Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Thérèse of Lisieux, Carmelite, Paul of the Cross, Father Benedict Groesche, Ibn Abbad al-Rundi, Miguel Asín Palacios, Shadhili tariqa, Douglas Adams - these are just a few of the articles that could be linked to Swami Ramaraaja because she has had this experience too. I wrote about it but due to complaints from this arena, I took it out. 65.31.193.198 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)65.31.193.198 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — 65.31.193.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have studied spiritual matters for over thirty years. It is very important for me to know what teachers who my spiritual teachers have studied with. It makes a difference because the level of enlightenment that a spiritual teacher has attained will affect my spiritual growth. The amount of awareness that a teacher exhibits will be what attracts me to study from them and it is not something that can be quantified by awards, certificates, etc. that one would find in other fields of study. Claire Ashlin (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Claire Ashlin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom, with suggestion to re-introduce when notability is proven. In cleaning the article and discussing the issues both here and at the talk page, C.Fred has been a model of patience. The issue has been explained clearly for several days; a series of indignant, patronizing, and bold-face comments supporting the article are not a substitute for objective reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. This is not the place to offer lessons in spiritual history, but to supply third-party sources which will support the importance of this person. Shouting at other contributors won't do, and ought to gain the attention of administrators. Conflict of interest is a major concern here. Contributions to this page feature several single purpose accounts--one desires to assume good faith, but given tone and timing, there is a possibility that one editor is using several accounts to forward their point of view. My disclosure: I proposed the article for speedy deletion, and contributed to the article's talk page under a different IP. 99.168.82.38 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability as follows:

Refs 1 & 6 are from Helium.com, a site where anyone can write about anything. Not reliable.

Refs 2, 3, 4 & 5 are from Sharon Stone, who is also the subject of this article. Self-published, not reliable. (GregJackP (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your points, but I still have not gotten vital questions answered. They are below... Richard Mende? Was not mentioned in your last entry. Does Wiki feel the points that he stressed within his article reliable? Or no per Wiki? We will continue to scour around to find more evidence to support this article so that it may be re-established but there are still unanswered questions that could help us. 1) What sources do you want? She did a lot as Sharon R. Stone DD for years before becoming a Swami so it is possible that something is out there. 2) How many sources to you require of other articles that is the 'standard' for every other article? I have never been given a guideline as to these two questions and so cannot proceed. Kundun95 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't evaluate an article based on what other articles do or do not have. I evaluate them based on the criteria listed in the WP guidelines. This article, as written does not meet that standard, thus the reason for my vote. I would recommend that if you wish to save the article, that you work on finding reliable, verifiable sources instead of bringing up other articles or individuals. Good luck. (GregJackP (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Airplaneman ^talk 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Petit

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

This article was brought up as a concern at WT:MILHIST. It appears at first glance to be well-sourced, but on a closer look at the references most don't support the assertions being made (in fact, most don't even mention the subject). Shimgray has helpfully produced this breakdown (quoted from here):

The referencing is certainly a bit weird. Let's run through it...:
Ref 1 - gives dates of Desert Storm to source a line saying he fought in it.

Ref 2 - "His platoon protected the right flank..." - sourced to a site confirming 3rd Arm Div fought, but nothing about his platoon.

Ref 3 - "...his platoon guarded the tent in Safwan" - story merely talks about the meeting, and indeed implies it was a different unit (1st Infantry) present.

Ref 4 - nothing but a captioned photo, which confirms Operation Provide Comfort existed... but nothing, again, to do with him.

Ref 5,6 - both confirm background history / unit participation but do not mention him

Ref 7 - involvement with Petraeus cited to a book review about Petraeus generally

Ref 8 - confirms who commanded the regiment, but doesn't mention him

Ref 9 - tells you what the institution does, but doesn't mention him

Ref 10 - press release about a single exercise, which doesn't mention him, used to cite his serving in Kosovo

Ref 11 - [can't access article]

Ref 12-14 - and he finally is mentioned in a source! Two news stories he's quoted in, one report in which he briefly attends a meeting.

Ref 15-17 - three articles discussing the film, doesn't mention him or give details of the unit's involvement

Ref 18,19 - [dead links]

Ref 20 - news story he's quoted in.

Ref 21 - news story about the program, doesn't mention him

Ref 22-24 - hurrah, an actual newspaper story which gives biographical details - albeit not many. "...reminding him of the dust- and blood-filled battles he had fought in the alleyways of Mogadishu" - this is the one firm fact we have about anything outside Iraq, and it's not mentioned in the article. No source for his injury.

Ref 25, 26 - news story about the new commander, doesn't mention him

Ref 26 - news story about the Afghanistan policy, doesn't mention him

Ref 27 - after a bit of digging, turns up this potted biography.

Ref 28 - doesn't seem relevant

Ref 29 - [dead link]

Ref 30 - an Amazon review of a book? He does seem to appear in it, though.

Ref 31 - [dead link]

While undoubtedly an accomplished individual, LtCol Petit doesn't automatically qualify for notability per WP:MILPEOPLE and doesn't seem to have the required coverage in reliable secondary sources that would pass WP:BIO. Delete? EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Insufficient specific and detailed coverage of him by independent reliable sources. Does not pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Well written, and I have a sneaky suspeicion that this is an alturistic rather than deliberately deceptive contribution. But it isn't notable. EyeSerene, I was going to notify the primary contributor as they didn't seem to have been told, then I noticed that you had informed them. Possibly because of the redirect, but the message doesn't seem to show up... Ranger Steve (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Steve for catching that - I use Twinkle to list AfDs and assumed the notice to the article author had been posted correctly (which it had, but the redirect was overriding it). Fixed now anyway. EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if the references weren't in question, he doesn't seem to have sufficient notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Ranger Steve is right about this seeming to be a more altruistic happening, but altruism aside, there's little to no notability in this article, and the breakdown of the list of sources provided by Shimgray shows it to be a significant issue.Cromdog (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the references are enough to show notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Underdown (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERNOM. JBsupreme (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As demonstrated by Shimgray, Lt-Col Petit doesn't meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Even with GOOD references he would not meet notability.--Looper5920 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SNOW and the nom's excellent research of the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paratrooper

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, as it is about a comic book (series?) that has not yet been published. Probably also intended as promotional. Subpage List of Characters in The Paratrooper had contested prod that went to AfD, so I'm bringing this one also for consistency. GregJackP (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL but also WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure is WP:SPAM isn't it, also as the others have said, WP:CRYSTAL --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero sign of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. If the book comes out and gets some coverage in reliable sources, then an article might be warranted - but this is premature. I'll assume good faith as to the spam, but if there were reliable sources about an unreleased book, it'd be notable and we wouldn't be having this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. It's an unpublished work. And there's no showing that it's a particularly work in progress (e.g. media coverage anticipating its release/completion). --JamesAM (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Characters in The Paratrooper

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, as it is about a comic book (series?) that has not yet been published. Probably also intended as promotional. GregJackP (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of characters from a non-published comic book? Definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a subpage of The Paratrooper which also fails WP:CRYSTAL. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no need to split these non-notable charactrs off from the comic book's article, when a short blurb there would suffice. If the book becomes notable upon its release, which it might, then an article about the book may be appropriate. But not yet, unfortunately. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Probably could have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Seton

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

no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions for WP:ENT. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sources provided are (at time of nomination) either unreliable and/or not independent (3,4,5,8), about someone or something else (1,2 (1 may mention him in a very trivial manor)), a film listing (6), not mentioning Ben Seton (2,3,7) and trivial (1?,4,5,6,8) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, insignificant coverage.--Pink Bull 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While his career is can be WP:Verified, and is perhaps sneaking up on WP:ENT, the total lack of coverage seems indicative of lack of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Puget

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

Non-notable? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GodZeND

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no refs, I can only seem to find links to social networking sites when using internet search engine. Has previously been up for speedy deletion in 1997. Wintonian (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligies for messing the section up - far too early in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability shown, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate entry --Wintonian (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Leafe Christian

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

Delete per WP:AUTHOR -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
week keep - Gnews shows she has been quoted in a lot of articles. so limited coverage in independent secondary sources exists.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Google Scholar shows several citations and quotations, her work appears somewhat significant in her field. —siro χ o 03:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Scholar results. Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Brayford

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

Delete, finding difficulty in matching this up with our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. I'm not finding anything on him other than mirrors of Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Lindberg

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

Research fellow at Hoover Institute, which I don't think alone qualifies for notability. I'd evaluate think-tank individuals much as we evaluate under WP:PROFESSOR, and I'm not seeing from the article those criteria being met. Shadowjams (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive GNews presence over extended period of time, as well as strong pattern of GBooks results, should be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of Policy Review, founding executive editor of The National Interest. Major figure in conservative journalism. Easily passes WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Manages a GS h index of around 15 so far as I can see so probably passes WP:Prof #1, also significant media presence as public intellectual. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Extensive GNews coverage in his capacity as an expert, so looks like passes criterion 7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some amount of Gnews in his area. Also editor of Policy Review, its Washington.., meets #7, #8(The person is or has been an editor...) from WP:PROF. thx. --kaeiou (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close - no deletion rationale, not up for deletion discussion (article was prodded), malformatted. Non-admin closure Will contact page creator on how to proceed --Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google profile

speedy do not delete See how many pages link to this there's a real need in this article please improve who is familiar with how to make this to comply with the deletists. --ssr (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) PS Neither this is "Unreferenced, factually incorrect". the "References" section gives the reference (so "Unreferenced" is plain untruth), and please point the factually incorrect fragments and what you want in them to be corrected with what so we can correct it but not delete. --ssr (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC) PS You mean, maybe the URL for GP or its FAQ are incorrect or what? --ssr (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles for deletion Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue

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. This a close against the numerical majority, but I feel it is required by the lack of adequate sourcing. The nomination challenged the article on notability grounds, and appropriately so, as reliable sources are lacking. Verifiability has not been challenged, but could have been, as the same lack of sources make it difficult to say anything that can be independently observed. I agree that this is the type of subject that should have an article, but in the absence of sources it is difficult to say what is real, and what is (if anything) is netlore. I will absolutely userfy/incubate, and give this a free pass to DRV if a anyone is so inclined. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills (talker)

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

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the sources verify the subject but are not independent so notability is not established. Poking around on Google I have only found the following: a paragraph long mention at a wiki-like thing run by the BBC and a possible passing mention in this book. Nothing to get excited about, unfortunately. Reyk _YO! 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talkers are pre-web, and some sites referenced have 404'd. Further research beyond the web (and in books beyond those Google Books searches) would be helpful. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching the Internet Archive might pull those 404s if you know the webaddress(es). -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to talkers article but this does seem to be a notable subject just needing clean-up and the right editor{s} to dig up where the history of talkers (whatever they are called universally or individually). This is true with the other noms in the subject area. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Benjiboi, but you'll have to actually cite sources on this one or at least try to base your comments in WP policy. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information and we cannot create a "history" on this subject without being able to draw from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without any doubt whatsoever. Foothills is an intrinsic part of early internet culture. It predates the popularity of the web and is a direct predecessor of modern social networks, instant messaging, and MMORPGs. Not to mention that it's still running after nearly two decades. I've completely rewritten the article to improve accuracy and support this case with many verifiability and notability references both in independent media and many books. Fox (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Afoxson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the sources seem less than what we ask for in other subjects, but I thin kthey;re OKfor this field. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - have to agree with DGG on this one - sourcing seems just suitable enough for this topic's nature. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG needs to substantiate his claims for inclusion, once again -- we do not play favorites. Either this has non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources or it doesn't. Which is it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't expect to find too much written about something from those days. Does anyone honestly doubt the sincerity of the article's claim? If its not a hoax, then its notable, and it doesn't seem like a hoax to me. Dream Focus 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond the Wired article, there's just not enough coverage to justify an article under our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - source are good enough for something like this. Not everything has been written about in books and the NYT. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazarrón

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

This appears to be some twisted version of WP:COATRACK. We have a notable subject, however the only things that I could find were ads. There appears to be multiple copyright issues like this [[25]] that makes me tend to believe that while nominally notbale this is being used as a coatrack to advertise tourism. This article would require a fundemental rewrite to come to a nutral point of view. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the German WP the user:Duc belgique is blocked. Maybe this would be useful here, too. The User also tries to spam others wikis:

German Now corrected
Spanish
French (cleaned up)
Dutch

--Josef Papi (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, this is almost pure advertising, with no attempt to say how or why the subject is notable in the larger scheme of things. Rewrite wrt Wiki guidelines or scrap it and start again..Keep now the reversion has been done. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was just a case of a new user in the last two days basically blanking a standard municipality article and completely re-writing it with inappropriate content. They way to deal with these situations is to simply revert to the pre-vandalized version - which I just did. Nominating a vandalized article for deletion instead of just reverting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.--Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the ads and un-encyclopaedic content have been removed. Places are inherently notable, and although the article could obviously be improved there is no reason to delete. I endorse the comments from Oakshade. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pokrajac. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokrajac (surname)

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

Issues with WP:N and WP:WINAD ManicSpider (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article content and good faith searches fail to satisfy general notability guidelines at WP:N. Also, as per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, genealogical dictionary, or directory. In the absence of sources the article may also be considered original research per WP:OR. ManicSpider (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokrajac. No need for two pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per Clarityfiend. A disambig may be needed but this article smacks of WP:OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend. That's the appropriate place for any (sourced) information about the notability and origin of this surname. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 01:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hinch

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

Nonnotable musician. Close to no trace on web. - Altenmann >t 08:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and rename. Black Kite 01:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Companies House e-info

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

26 hits for this on Google. Article has had no real edits in 3 years. Ridernyc (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be moved to the title of the body. And the article needs to be references (I'll try). But any national corporations regulator is, in my view, inherently notable.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Companies Commission of Malaysia. It's a national-level statutory body with numerous GNews hits: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, author blanked. ... discospinster _talk 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaachak

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

Article about a software product that is essentially and advertisement. Wa-a-a-ay too long and detailed, reads like a sales and spec sheet. Almost assuredly copied and pasted from some other source, though I'm not able to find the source online. It's posted by someone connected with the product; the "we" down at the end of the article is a giveaway. General notability of the subject is highly doubtful. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Blanked by original author. On March 12, the text of the article was removed by the original author, with an edit summary reading, "I have decided to withdraw from Wikipedia." Closure requested. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be someone's undergraduate project, or perhaps extracts from a technical presentation describing the principles of a particular text-to-speech implementation. It is unsourced original research (there are some generic references, but they are not related to any text in the article). This article links to the established Speech synthesis which is a correctly written article on the topic. 10:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Quite a bit of evidence has been provided to suggest the subject is notable. No consensus is a plausible result here, although I think this AfD is leaning ever so slightly towards retaining the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Johnson

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

only reason this was not speedy deleted was because a single purpose account deleted the prod Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the prod said, "holding a position at a university does not in itself satisfy WP:BIO". Can't see any other notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's athletic director at the University of Memphis, a Division I school. Their basketball coach would be notable; he's the person who's the senior administrative office who hires (and recently fired) the basketball coach. There should be no problem finding references. Did the nominator even try to look? In fact, right above in the preset searches, the G News source lists 2040 references. Limiting it to "Memphis still gives 1130. There's 16 in 2010 alone. I added a few of them. I don't pay much attention to this subject, but even I recognize him as notable. It is, of course, a shame that the article did not show this more clearly, but it can be improved. It is really discouraging to see the current approach to BLPs that happen to be currently unsourced: nominate them for deletion without looking. I have not the least objection to deleting BLPs that cannot be reasonably sourced, but to nominate without even checking Google News is careless. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited. R. C. Johnson is no more notable for hiring someone notable than Barry Bond's knee is notable for being a body part of Mr. Barry Bonds Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improper use of the term. not inherited means that because he is notable, we do not imply that everyone who is associated with him is notable also, such as his secretary. If a particular organizational office or officer is notable because of his function, everyone there with a yet more inclusive function is notable also. is notable, In any case, a sufficient argument for notability is the hundreds of articles talking specifically about him. A person whose hiring makes multiple news stories, even out of the region, is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKD Tries Again (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet general notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why was this even nominated? He has significant coverage in the media. This is only a small sample and many of these articles include his name in the title. CBS News USA Today NBC Sports LA Times CBS Sports Associated Press article I found on Myfoxmemphis Ooops forgot the Repo-Box (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the CBS Sports "article" is actually a message board post which WP:SPS addresses. as for the other articles, R.C. Johnson is only mentioned in passing and in the case of the last article, being interviewed by a local news channel no more makes R.C. Johnson notable than it makes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Atkinson (software developer) (2nd nomination) notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Munoz notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Feinstein notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Van Dijck notable, etc. using your criterion, i would be notable since i was interviewed in high school while running for class president! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being extremely fact selective in singling out two of the links I provided. I strongly disagree with your characterization that the other articles you did NOT address in detail just mention him in passing. Take for example this Associated Press article at CBS news. The article quotes him directly four times. He is also quoted directly numerous times in this USA Today article.

Now let's look at all of the articles I *didn't* mention. Do a google search for "R. C. Johnson" at each of the following sites and this is how many hits you get: USA Today - 315; NY Times 166; Washington Post - 51. You are welcome to search for him at other major newspapers and media outlets on your own.

Don't waste your time picking out a few of these that are not full articles. Many of them are - far more than enough to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repo-Box (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline based on the sources presented above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Has been athletic director at three major universities, Miami of Ohio, Temple and Memphis. Has been the subject of hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles. A sampling of the articles, including articles The Philadelphia Inquirer (#17 paper in USA), The Cincinnati Post and The Commercial Appeal (the newspaper with the 70th largest circulation in the USA[26]), include: (1) Line's busy, long, in search of coach -- Johnson begins sorting initial list of candidates, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News , November 12, 2009, (2) University of Memphis athletic director R.C. Johnson mulling Tommy West's fate: Disappointed in team, will wait and see, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 1, 2009, (3) Give Johnson credit for hire -- Bringing in Tranghese smart move for Tigers, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), September 16, 2009, (4) Time for Johnson to bow out, The Commercial Appeal, August 23, 2009, (5) R.C. Johnson speaks, The Commercial Appeal, August 1, 2009, (6) No laughing matter -- Tigers' AD Johnson is 'roasted'by pals, but it's no joke: His decisions seem half-baked, The Commercial Appeal, May 29, 2009, (7) Calkins: Memphis AD Johnson deserves roasting, Scripps Howard News Service, May 29, 2009, (8) Memphis releases R.C. Johnson statement, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 2009, (9) A warning for Josh Pastner and R.C. Johnson, The Commercial Appeal, April 23, 2009, (10) Best is yet to come -- Johnson sees BCS conference, national title in Tigers' future, The Commercial Appeal, December 19, 2008, (11) Tigers to beef up facilities -- Johnson unveils plan to upgrade football complex, The Commercial Appeal, August 9, 2008, (12) Johnson is joining in chase for Big East, The Commercial Appeal, May 18, 2008, (13) U of M, Big East deny talk -- Johnson says report of courtship is premature, The Commercial Appeal, May 16, 2008, (14) Scholarship fund reaches new heights -- AD Johnson praises 'phenomenal success', The Commercial Appeal, June 23, 2007, (15) U of M's scholarship fund hits $5 million -- Tigers reach ambitious goal set by AD Johnson, The Commercial Appeal, July 7, 2006, (16) Tiger ticket sales near AD's goal -- With opener approaching, Johnson targets 20,000, The Commercial Appeal, August 12, 2005, (17) Tiger AD Johnson hospitalized, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 2005, (18) Tiger AD to review policies -- Johnson: U of M needs unified discipline, The Commercial Appeal, January 26, 2005, (19) Tiger A.D. expects bid to Mobile bowl -- Strong fan support gives U of M postseason allure, Johnson says, The Commercial Appeal, November 21, 2004, (20) Five questions with R. C. Johnson U of M athletic director, The Commercial Appeal, October 14, 2004, (21) TIGER AD JOHNSON WILL PRESS FOR MOVE, The Commercial Appeal, April 12, 2004, (22) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH . . . R.C. JOHNSON ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, November 20, 2003, (23) TIGER FANS MAY WIN FIGHT TO PLAY UT - POPULAR OPINION COULD CHANGE JOHNSON'S MIND, The Commercial Appeal, November 14, 2003, (24) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH ... R. C. JOHNSON, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, September 25, 2003, (25) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH ... R. C. JOHNSON, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, September 4, 2003, (26) CALIPARI'S DEAL TO BE EXTENDED BY 1 YEAR, JOHNSON SET TO TAKE ACTION AFTER NIT TITLE, The Commercial Appeal, April 10, 2002, (27) TIGERS GIVE JOHNSON 5-YEAR EXTENSION, The Commercial Appeal, December 16, 2001, (28) U OF M'S JOHNSON HONORED AT LUNCHEON, The Commercial Appeal, December 28, 2000, (29) A LETTER FROM R.C. JOHNSON, The Commercial Appeal, December 24, 2000, (30) JOHNSON UNDECIDED ON SCHERER'S FUTURE \ DECISION MUST COME QUICKLY, The Commercial Appeal, November 16, 2000, (31) JOHNSON DENIES N.Y. STORY, The Commercial Appeal, February 18, 2000, (32) JOHNSON SAYS HE'S CONTACTED NO COACHES FOR JOB, The Commercial Appeal, December 5, 1999, (33) TIGER AD: 'TIC IS STILL MY COACH', JOHNSON ASKS FOR FAN SUPPORT, The Commercial Appeal, March 10, 1999, (34) JOHNSON, BY THE NUMBERS, The Commercial Appeal, February 12, 1999, (35) 'DISAPPOINTED' JOHNSON BACKS SCHERER, The Commercial Appeal, November 25, 1997, (36) JOHNSON BACKS SCHERER, TIGER AD HAS FAITH IN COACH, The Commercial Appeal, September 24, 1997, (37) JOHNSON WANTS NO CHANGES FOR WHILE, The Commercial Appeal, September 14, 1997, (38) JOHNSON PRAISES U OF M TV APPEAL, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 1997, (39) JOHNSON'S EMOTIONS ARE MIXED, The Commercial Appeal, May 15, 1997, (40) ERA BEGINS AS SEARCH ENDS, JOHNSON CALLS CHOICE 'NO. 1', The Commercial Appeal, March 28, 1997, (41) JOHNSON: U OF M SEARCH NOT LIMITED, The Commercial Appeal, March 26, 1997, (42) JOHNSON SETS TARGET DATE IN COACH SEARCH, HIRING GOAL: MARCH 29, The Commercial Appeal, March 18, 1997, (43) TIGERS' JOHNSON, TULSA BASKETBALL COACH MEET, The Commercial Appeal, February 18, 1997, (44) JOHNSON GETS OK TO TALK TO BUFFS' COACH, The Commercial Appeal, February 5, 1997, (45) JOHNSON DELAYS SEARCH PANEL, The Commercial Appeal, February 2, 1997, (46) TIGERS STRAIN FOR VISIBILITY, JOHNSON EMPLOYS MARKET IDEAS, The Commercial Appeal, May 31, 1996, (47) JOHNSON HEARS REACTION, AD TO SPEAK WITH FINCH, The Commercial Appeal, March 16, 1996, (48) A NEW BEGINNING ..., JOHNSON SHOULD FIT IN WELL AS ATHLETIC DIRECTOR FOR U OF M, The Commercial Appeal, January 14, 1996, (49) JOHNSON LEAVES TEMPLE FOR MEMPHIS AD JOB, The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 30, 1995, (50) Johnson bolts Temple, becomes Memphis AD, The Cincinnati Post, December 30, 1995, (51) Temple's Johnson named U of M athletic director, The Commercial Appeal, December 30, 1995 (52) Temple Names Johnson, Delaware County Daily Times (Primos - Upper Darby, PA), May 10, 1994, and (53) TEMPLE NAMES JOHNSON AS ITS NEW AD, The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 1994, (54) Big Ten job 'the ultimate,'says Miami's Johnson, The Cincinnati Post, December 13, 1993. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chilson

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER - one movie only, not multiple ones. No large fan base or cult following. No unique contribution. GregJackP (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for total failure of WP:ENTERTAINER. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Evalpor (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Defying Gravity (1997 film). His one film in 1997 does not a career make nor WP:ENT meet. [27] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Melian

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

CSD:A7 removed by another editor, who stated that he had played for a notable band (probably, AGF, a misreading of the article to believe that he played lead for the Kooks, instead of playing with another band at the same venue with the Kooks). Fails WP:MUSICBIO, GHits show one reliable source (UK Guardian) which panned the band in general. Other GHits were performance notices, myspace, etc. No GNews / GBooks / GScholar hits. (GregJackP (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - for some reason this double posted - can we remove this one? (GregJackP (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've tagged the second and third AfD nominations for speedy deletion by G6. This discussion should happen at the first nomination, since otherwise it looks like this article has survived two AfDs already. If you have said anything at the other two instances of this discussion that you want at this one, you should move those comments here. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A slightly different version of this article has been speedily deleted as an A7 case twice in the last few days. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Cat the Dog !vote changed 03:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC). I can find no references to Melian other than sources that mention him in his capacity as the frontman of Cat the Dog. The band is reviewed by The Guardian here: [28], but this is the only review in a reliable source that I can find, and a single review (especially one as unfavorable as this) satisfies neither the general notability guideline, nor the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Other coverage includes Cat the Dog's Last FM bio here: [29], an identical bio here: [30], and a passing reference on this forum on the Kooks official website: [31], where someone remarks:

"...there were only about 5 people in the world who liked CtD [Cat the Dog]. That was you, me, soph, georgie and gerry. No one knows who Christopher Melian is."

The sources I have been able to find do not establish notability under either the GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to a redirect to Cat the Dog. I still feel this individual is not notable, but a redirect would be more useful than deleting the article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fixed the formatting so that all the claimed references are now visible. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:MUSIC; article is padded with stuff about his obscure band. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the above comments relating generally to notability. Frankly, I am really struggling to see why Cat the Dog are notable based on a couple of flop singles; never mind this non-entity former band member. Of course, this whole premise may have come purely from a publicity angle rather than an encyclopedic one. Just a thought. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with your question on the band Cat the Dog, and have tagged the article as of questionable notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cat the Dog has had coverage in The Guardian and on BBC.co.uk, and I found an article about The Hot Melts in the Liverpool Echo which notes, "Cat The Dog singer and guitarist Chris Melian has stepped in" (replacing a departing member of The Hot Melts). At the very least, a redirect to Cat the Dog, where I added the Echo source, can be put in place. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pascack Valley Regional High School District. There seems to be a consensus here that a dedicated article is not warranted. Although some editors have argued a merge would be out of place, there's no particularly strong policy argument cited in either direction. That's not neccessarily a problem, but it leads me to view consensus as lying with the majority who say a merge is suitable. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pascack Pi-oneers

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

I have searched for substantial reliable source coverage and can only find a few local media mentions that do not appear to be enough to establish notability for this high school team. Additionally the article reads like an ad (which needs to be fixed if notability can be established). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pascack Valley Regional High School District. A basketball, soccer, or baseball team, or a band or choir with as little press coverage as this robotics team (2 articles in Google News Archive) would be merged to the high school. But this robotics team is from two different high schools in a district, so merger to the article about the school district in indicated. The article can be "smerged" or selectively merged to the school district article, thereby removing any excessively promotional language. Edison (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The team website has a page containing archived copies of several news articles written specifically about the team; they seem to be sufficient to satisfy the notabilty requirement. Also, I'm not keen on a merge to the school district's article. That would seem out of place, I think. It's probably better to have this stand alone, with "See also" links from the schools' articles. TheFeds 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been updated to reflect the team's accomplishments and has provided several references previously unmentioned. I propose they satisfy the notabilty requirement. A merge with the district's article mixes a student activity with the business of the district, and that isn't supported by precedent.Noah976 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. The additional sources recently added by Noah976 are composed of links to the local school board's website, the US First website, and online forums. There have now also been several questionably notable facts added. For instance being "one of the 39 teams" or "Local newspaper coverage was received" or "hosting several teams and generating enthusiasm in the community" does not sound notable regardless of sourcing. Claims such as "most prestigious award" and "Receiving this award is somewhat rare" and "a relatively young team winning a second Chairmans Award is uncommon" are not supported by reliable sources and sound like non-neutral POV per WP:NPOV. While statements such as, "They have won several other awards" are pointless, and are relying on original research. Based upon the stretch of questionable claims, non-neutral point of view, and lack of significant coverage this team just does not seem notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argument. Citations include five newspaper articles - are these not valid? The links to the newspaper articles are, regrettably, copyrighted when they are archived, so only links to the free preview can be cited. Four articles in a large newspaper (circulation 168000 ^[1]) plus others (only one other is cited) is notable. Generating community enthusiasm for science nerds is notable (just try doing it!). I'm searching for the stats to cite the claim about rarity and uncommon-ness, since these are what makes the team notable, agree without citations they seem like puffery. Winning these major awards, when so very few the 1809 teams competing^[2] (Pg 12) ever do, is notable. Certainly there are teams more notable, but the majority are far less notable. Follow the link to see the 'several other awards', "pointless" is listing them here when a mouse click shows them to you; they are not original research as defined, instead are documented facts. I do agree on the non-neutral POV, that could use work. Newbie here.Noah976 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pascack Valley Regional High School District, I don't think a High school team, unless something really notable happened should have its independent article. -RobertMel (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge It would take much mor than this to make a particular high school team independently notable, such as a national championship. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead of Merge As stated, merge is not appropriate. If the team isn't notable (which I dispute, it is) then delete the article.Noah976 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Noah976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You voted both "keep" and "delete" here. Please make up your mind. Airplaneman ^talk 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school's article, with either a mention in the appropriate section or a subsection of some sort. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Den Brother

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

Film has not begun casting, let alone filming. Therefore, the film clearly fails WP:NFF, which states "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The article claims one actor has been cast, but even if it were true (I cannot find sources for this), one actor does not make a whole film. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFF is clear on this issue. No principal photography, no article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would appear to lack the references needed for verifiability, much less notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disney announced only eight days ago their intention to add "six new movies and three series to air over the next two years", Den Brother being one of those six new films. This announcement is by no means sufficient to confer upon the subject enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. For now, delete per WP:NFF because the film has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography and should not have its own article until such a time that this can be confirmed. No prejudice towards recreation should the film one day meet the necessary notability requirements. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way to early for this one. No significant coverage, not even near to being in production. Fails WP:NFF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too soon for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zika

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

I've prodded the article with a rationale: No substantial and independent sources neither in Czech nor in English language. The subject of this article doesn't meet basic notability guidelines. Prod template was removed without significant improvements. It is quite clear that Zika works for Z1 TV, however, I can't find any evidence of notability or a notable contribution in his field of work, noted by reliable and independent sources. Not notable TV anchor. Vejvančický (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's hard to judge this as most of the results are in Czech but there are quite a few results for a Czech director of the same name. If it's the same person people might want to look into that. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A director? Could you add any links, please? There is one notable Jan Zika, a communist politician murdered during the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia [32]. I forgot to mention him, thank you for reminding me this important fact. Btw, I notified people fluent in Czech language at WP:CZECH. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. - Darwinek (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mrege to Z1 TV where this comentator has searchable context [33]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough, also, I don't think this can be merged to Z1 TV for the sole reason that its not a developped article which is sufficiantly long to contain Jan Zika. -RobertMel (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rozlyn Papa

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

Individual was only notable for a one-time scandal on the last season of "The Bachelor". Insufficient sources or notability to maintain a longterm article. El on ka 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is some press coverage by multiple, major news sources, but appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. — Satori Son 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing here that couldn't be covered in a controversy section on The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love. Note that even the Bachelor for this season, Jake Pavelka, was deemed not-notable enough for a separate article (in a recent AFD). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator, I would support the idea of a merge. The event was definitely notable within the context of this particular season, "The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love". --El on ka 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no merge The redirect to TB:OTWOL is fine, however outside of appearing on The Bachelor, there's nothing about this article that can be merged. The mention of her magazines posed for and agency representation is pretty much violating WP:ADVERT. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree, she's notable only because of The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love, we can't merge, because we would have to add contents for each others. -RobertMel (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Bachelor: On the Wings of Love. What may be worth mentioning about her in Wikipedia seems more appopriate in the narrative of the article about her. If a reality show contestant hasn't appeared in multiple seasons, or appeared on other shows, or been declared the winner, or achieved additional notabilty through her profession, then she seems to fall under the WP:ONEEVENT. It doesn't seem to convey notability for a bio independent of the event article (i.e. the article for that season). And having modeling photos in regional publications (for which there is no cite) doesn't strike me as sufficient to confer notability on a model. --JamesAM (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wemmick

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

John Wemmick is not an important character and does not need his own article. DrBat (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to an appropriate character list.Edward321 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep based on sources found by Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - The article appears to be original research. If anything is to be merged, it must cite secondary sources. PDCook (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and Merge the rest into the right character list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of scholarly papers[34][35] and has plenty more coverage in the sources found by the Google Books and Google Scholar searches linked above. Let's not open ourselves to ridicule as being the encyclopaedia that covers the minutiae of Star Wars and Pokémon but deletes articles about important characters in the accepted literary canon. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 in a Row

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

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming. Last bundled in AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game which closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of pricing games, but there seems to be at least one book on "The prize is right" and probably more. This is certainly not highly scientific, but neither is the topic. This would mean that it is possible to source the article to some extent, it has just not been done within the last 5 years. However, this seems to make it a weak keep. PanchoS (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is not whether it is sourced, but whether it can be sourced sufficient to show notability per WP:N. The consensus is some pricing games are individually notable, others are not. I'm unable to find evidence of notability for this game with good faith Google searches, and the article doesn't provide any, so delete as failing WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GNG supersedes WP:PROF; passing only one of them is sufficient. WP:NPOV is an editing issue that can be addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baskerville

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

This article appears to be promotional in nature, and does not have any third-party sources or proof of the subject's notability. In addition, it goes beyond simply describing the subject's views, instead actually pushing them (for example, by describing a judge's views as "chilling"). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Baskerville is a leading political scientist. If the issue is with the point of view, than editing the article seems much more appropriate than just deleting it. I really think delete attempts on the grounds that the article has problems with how it is written are unwise. If you can nominate it for deletion, you can edit it, and that would give everyone more understanding.John Pack Lambert 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for the claim that Baskerville is "a leading political scientist"? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that Baskerville being president of the coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. Also his being a leading expert on how public policy effects families would make him a notable academic. While initially the article may not have had any true third party sources, it does now. Remember, the question is not, does the group have the same ideology as Baskerville, but does he have any control over it. I think Eagle Forum counts as a third party source. Human Evants is a bit harder, since he has been a writer for them, but the fact that they published an article about him and his views is worth noting.John Pack Lambert 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now included a link to an attack piece against Baskerville published in a Fredricksburg, Virginia newspaper in response to an article written by him published in the same newspaper earlier. The reasons to keep the article are clearly increasing.John Pack Lambert 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- But remember, third-party or not, Eagle Forum is not a neutral source; it has a very strong slant to it. So if you are going to cite it, make sure you do so in a way that doesn't come across as endorsing its POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no neutral sources. To even talk of such things is rubbish. All sources have bias, all people have bias. This is even more so the case in an issue like divorce law and child support schedules. Anyway, my whole point in citing the Eagle Forum website was to show that people respect and pay attention to Baskerville's views. Whether you think these views refelct the truth or are a manipulation of it, baskerville is a recognized scholar who has had his views widely discussed.John Pack Lambert 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep I too think his presidency of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. He also appears to be a published author - [36], and has appeared on mainstream US TV - [37] (though the latter needs secondary sourcing). The article needs work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and to make it a bit more NPOV -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he is the president of an organization does not make him notable, unless the organization itself is also notable. The American Coalition of Fathers and Children article cites no sources except for the group's official website, and provides no proof that the group itself is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if people want to discuss point of view issues, it seems it would be much better to do so on the discussion page of the article. Point of View is an issue of the article's current form, not really an issue of whether the subject is notable and thus whether the article should exist.John Pack Lambert 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h index only 5. After all this time notability has not been clearly established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As Xxanthippe notes, this article does not pass WP:PROF, but it does pass WP:GNG. Subject's notability seems to stem from his political, rather than scholarly, activity. He had both an op-ed and a rebuttal to his op-ed in the Washington Post, is the subject of both coverage and reader response in local newspapers [38], etc. Ray^Talk 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are weak arguments on both sides like "I've never heard of it" and "it exists, so must be notable." But in the end, some marginal sources have been provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon Creek

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

This page is describing a creek that is not notable, and it has clearly not been copy edited. E2eamon (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, google doesn't jump out to say it is, doesn't read well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I lived in SC my whole life, travelled around the northern part of the state (had some ancestors that lived there, went with my Mom to document their graves and such), and I've never heard of Fairdeal or Watermelon Creek. I can't find stuff on them either. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's relevant here is whether the geographic feature is listed in GNIS. In this case, GNIS lists a Watermelon Creek in Charleston County, South Carolina and one in Anderson County, South Carolina. See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 11 and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 11 GNIS does not have a listing for Fairdeal, South Carolina or Fair Deal, South Carolina, Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rocky River (South Carolina). Despite the poor writing in the article, this creek does appear to exist; it's the creek in Anderson County that Eastmain mentioned above. However, it appears to be a rather short creek with no particular notability, and there's no consensus which states that all short creeks are notable, so it should be merged into the Rocky River article since it's ultimately a tributary of that river. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Keep Apparently there's more consensus toward all geographic features being notable than I thought. I also found some references to the creek in outside sources, which is enough to convince me to keep this article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears in GNIS which proves its existence. As per notability it is my opinion that all streams are pretty much inherently notable, heck I created an article on a small creek a day or two ago. I cite WP:5P which states, "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." -Marcusmax(speak) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article even if it is lister in GNIS, and very few Google hits. ^Pepper∙_piggle 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a body of water. All bodies of water are a part of this earth, and are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Stores

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

Non-notable organisation under the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which requires that an organisation has " significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There is no news coverage of this organisation and, other than self promotion, not much else online at all. Note that WP:ORG specifically states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

1. Due to news coverage

2. One will find more results if he or she searches for the names of the name brand stores operated by National Stores. ("Factory 2-U," (2004 and onwards) "Fallas Paredes")

For instance http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/04/28/newscolumn5.html discusses how "Fallas Paredes" is closing one of the stores in Houston that it acquired from Weiner's. Even though the company name is actually National Stores, the article uses the brand name

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had added additional references after Wikipeterproject made his first post. I would like for him to re-assess the scenario so I can determine whether I need to look for more sources. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources establish clear notability.--Pink Bull 02:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Today, Johannes Jaar made a major edit to improve the article's sourcing and quality and I think there is a good chance that this edit will make the article more palatable to those who have voted to delete it. Since the article has been relisted several times, I won't continue to drag out the issue. The article may be renominated at some point if someone feels Jaar's edit is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roodt

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

A possibly self-promotional biography of a white nationalist of questionable notability. The only third-party source linked mentions Roodt almost as an afterthought, and really isn't about him. All other links are to his own websites and blogs. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above is a whole bunch of nonsense, it is without fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.schoeman (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This should be kept at all cost, he is a true icon of the Afrikaner. This is not about anyone else except the protection of our culture. Dr. Roodt is a respected member of our community and a leader.
- Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this entry should be deleted. I can read Afrikaans, and would therefore rewrite it - but I do not consider Dan Roodt as noteable enough (nationally and internationally) to be entered into Wikipedia. This is only supported by the fact that he would probably not have been added had he not written so much of the page himself. Furthermore, the article mentions that he "is cited in both Kannemeyer (1983: 241) and Van Coller (1998: 83), being the two most recent and authoritative literary histories on Afrikaans literature." The use of this information is questionable. Both texts are viewed as leading literary histories of Afrikaans, yet the information is incomplete. Simply stating that Roodt is mentioned is redundant if there is no clarification of why he is mentioned. The text from 1983 is not the most recent edition (as claimed), and an updated edition was released in 2005. In the 2005 edition, Kannemeyer states that Roodt's book Moltrein (2004) is testimony of a severe ineptness regarding the use of the Afrikaans language, and that his oeuvre makes no significant contribution to the Afrikaans literature whatsoever. The publication of his most recent books seems to be the simple result of his organisation (PRAAG) having its own publisher, as is also stated in the article as it is at the moment. None of the other respectable South African publishers who publish Afrikaans books have published any book by Roodt. His entry into these literary histories is most likely because he published a book through the major anti-apartheid underground publisher Taurus at the beginning of the 80s. Johannes Jaar (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He used to be anti-apartheid? Interesting....but it certainly looks like he's done a U-turn on the issue since then. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weird, yes, but I think one would refer to Roodt's views of back then as anti-establishment, rather than anti-apartheid. It was more the publisher that was anti-apartheid. Johannes Jaar (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This person has been editing Wikipedia (including this article) as User: Danroodt. He has also attempted to advertise (spam) one of his own blog entries on the Nelson Mandela article. The article's creator, User: Tertiavanreenen, may also ties to Roodt, as it appears to be a SPA who has only contributed to this article, not any others. Also, if you Google "Tertia van reenen dan roodt", you get quite a few pages with both names on them. However, most of those pages are in Afrikaans, and I can't read Afrikaans, so I don't know for sure if they are linked in some way or not. Many of those pages have the word "praag" in the title, though, and according to this article, PRAAG is the name Roodt uses to refer to his "organization". So it's possible that Tertiavanreenen is affiliated with PRAAG, and would therefore arguably have a conflict of interest if this were true. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [39], [40] and [41] for evidence of what I was talking about. Interestingly, the anti-Mandela blog has the country code ".tk", which is associated with Tokelau! Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as notability, there are plenty of reliable sources for him, detestable as his beliefs may be (GNews). The article clearly needs rework, may be a violation of WP:COI and WP:AB. (GregJackP (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup I think. GregJackP's comment leaves me puzzled. If there are "plenty of reliable sources", shouldn't the article be fixed rather than deleted? I'm thinking that someone must once have said that AfD isn't cleanup. Google News does indeed have a fair bit of coverage of the subject, and he is a member of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, and that should count for something too. If Mr Roodt won't mend his autobiographical ways, we have ways to deal with that. Has anyone pointed WP:COI out to him? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clarification. The article as written appears to be a COI and AB. The WP:AB link states "Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." It appears to me that the article exists primarily to advance his interests, without a single mention of the controversies that surround him. There is no mention of his views that blacks are by nature violent [42], faces or faced a hate-speech charge [43], or any other blemishes. I don't have any desire to edit it myself, but I would not object to it being rewritten to Wiki standards. As the article is currently written, it meets the test for deletion under WP:AP. (GregJackP (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I can only read Afrikaans insofar as it is like Dutch, and my Dutch isn't great to start with. But I'll see if I can do something with this. Cutting it down to a few sentences will be step one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can find some reliable sources. If this article was brought to afd soon after its creation, i'd say it just needs to be cleaned up, but due to the time that has gone by, I don't know if it can be cleaned up, but I am not an expert on the subject, so i'd be glad to change my comment towards someone who is if the situation changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems several participants aren't sure themselves whether to keep or delete this article, so a relist seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good that this article has been included in the South Africa List now. I also added a notice on the WikiProject South Africa. While I agree that this article is heavily biased and generally in bad shape, I am quite convinced that this controversial person is clearly notable. See only this news article and this article in The Sunday Times. More references can surely be found. Keep — PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference you gave appears to be from a publication ("Socialist Worker") that pushes a particular POV. The very name sounds decidedly slanted to me. This doesn't necessarily mean we can't use it as a source, just that we have to be careful when doing so. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me one publication that doesn't push a particular POV... the main difference is how much the POV is mainstream or not. However I agree with you that this article can be only a starting point to search for broader, and therefore more reliable news coverage. PanchoS (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition the above arguments about conflict of interest, and verfiability/reliability of sources - we also need to consider that Wiki policy is that in BLPs, unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.. Coupled with the fact that he is only questionably notable, this is probably grounds to scrap the whole article. Addionne (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup - In spite of the article currently being mostly his own work, most of the content is uncontroversial and verifiable - even objective truth. There is plenty reliable information available about him - from opponents, supporters and neutral sources. His notability is established as a well known and highly controversial figure in political, literary and cultural (battle)fields in South Africa. A "nobody" doesn't get nearly 200 000 Googlehits. The article's main problem is about what is not in it rather than what is in it. The Afrikaans WP article[44] is much better and can be used to help fix this one. Roger (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP: GOOGLEHITS. Search engine statistics do not guarantee notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the content of WP:GOOGLEHITS. I did not claim that google hits per se make him notable. All I meant is that the fact that the name gets over 200 000 google hits at the very least implies that this person is not a "nobody". WP:GOOGLEHITS does not forbid mentioning the number of hits a subject gets. But that is in any case not the core of my argument - the subject's notability comes from his prominence in the South African media in terms of the high profile role he plays in ethnic politics in the country. The fact that the current article is largely edited by the subject himself does not nullify his notability either. Roger (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Roodt is not a nobody, yet I think that many of the hits on Google are a result of websites either owned or operated by Roodt, or websites owned and operated by supporters of Roodt (or those who agree with some of his views, not necessarily supporters). The following are owned by Roodt: roodt.org, www.praag.co.za, www.praag.co.uk. Searching on Google Scholar results in 80 hits. Not really huge. I also did a search for Dan Roodt on the websites of major South African newspapers (Afrikaans and English) with the following results: Beeld (Afrikaans daily, Northern parts of SA) - 16; Die Burger (Afrikaans daily, Cape area) - 25; Volksblad (Afrikaans daily, Free State/Central) - 5; Rapport (Afrikaans weekly, national) - 21; City Press (English weekly, national) - none; Mail & Guardian (English, national) - 15; Pretoria News (English, Gauteng) - 4; Times Live (all news papers owned by The Times, including Sunday Times) - 26; Sowetan (English, national) - none. Unfortunately much of the subject's notability seems to be generated by him via his own websites (which are often copied from and paraphrased elsewhere on blogs, etc.), and by writing letters to newspapers and South African e-zines (like www.litnet.co.za). I don't think his part in the South African media in terms of ethnic politics is that big. His prominence is utterly questionable, and hardly probable. Delete Johannes Jaar (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same result when I Googled him; nearly all the hits were from websites linked to Roodt or PRAAG. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also checked out the Afrikaans article ([45]. Although it includes more info, there are still very few reliable sources. It simply looks like an expansion of the English article. Mostly edited by (well, what do ya know?!) User:Danroodt. Johannes Jaar (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the second relist, done in the hopes that a more conclusive consensus can be reached. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this repeated listing is achieving anything at all. I'm not even sure that it should in principle be allowed as it can be interpreted that the proposer is pushing a particular POV. Roger (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate. Pushing a point of view is expected behaviour in a debate; indeed, it's a central aspect of debating, and nobody should be censured for doing it.
I think Dan Roodt is controversial enough, and well-known enough, that people might search for "Dan Roodt" on Wikipedia. This implies that Dan Roodt should not be a redlink. It could be a redirect to a different article, or to a list of activists, rather than an article in its own right. In other words, whether or not Dan Roodt is notable enough to deserve his own article, his name is a plausible search term.
This means that what we need to decide is whether to replace his article with a redirect (and if so, to where), or whether to keep a shortened version of the article.
This is not a decision for AfD. You don't need administrative tools to do any of that, so the normal talk-page discussion route is sufficient.
Therefore, this debate can safely and correctly be closed as "no consensus" and the matter continued on the article's talk page until a conclusion is reached.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This should be kept at all cost, he is a true icon of the Afrikaner. This is not about anyone else except the protection of our culture. Dr. Roodt is a respected member of our community and a leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.schoeman (talk 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)• contribs) 16:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You already posted these exact same comments at the top of the AFD. Please do not make duplicate posts, it merely clutters up the discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article, added sources, info, etc. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's better. Please check and change if necessary (and remove labels, if possible). Johannes Jaar (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSLint

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

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Non-notable product; fails WP:N, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Google books lists many sources that talk about JSLint fairly extensively (e.g. whole appendices or chapters). This stub was tagged far too aggressively. There is no reason to PROD something that is not spam the same day it is created! Nominator does not mention any attempt to look for source material & would be well-advised to use the cleanup templates, so as to not bite newcomers/let stubs grow. --Karnesky (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand the article to work in the significance in such contexts, because I'd support retention of this article if some grounds of interest could be outlined? Ian¹³ /t 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would JSLint be any less notable than all those other tools for static code analysis? Unlike other tools (for other languages) it's even suitable for automated tests. Anyone who writes JavaScript for a living has heard of it or uses it all the time. It's also available as plugin for many text editors and IDEs. Randomly proposing articles for deletion just because you haven't heard of it really isn't the way Wikipedia should be. 78.51.86.141 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't nominate the article because I haven't heard of JSLint; I nominated it because the article is one sentence long and doesn't assert its notability. Also, just because there are other articles has no bearing on this one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Papers such as M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 lead me to believe an article could be built up around this topic outlining its significance. Ian¹³ /t 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a a static code analysis tool used in software development for checking if a JavaScript source code complies with coding rules. This seems to be a bit too granular. Possibly worth a mention in a general article on "static code analysis" or JavaScript debugging, but I don't see this tool as meriting a separate article, especially if there are others performing a similar function. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smerdis on the substance of his argument (too granular as is, but worth a mention in a more general article). I disagree with his recommendation of "delete" because if it's worth a mention in a more general article, then it's also worth a redirect to that article.
Since we can redirect instead of deleting, then deletion is avoidable. Per WP:BEFORE, if we can avoid deletion, then we should. QED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. JBsupreme (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per many published sources given. LotLE×talk 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 3 references: M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 (paywall) to the article; it has a half-page, with screenshot, and sections from 2 books found via Amazon Search Inside, including the appendix of one O'Reilly book. Please add further WP:RS. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are book chapters about this, as pointed out above. Pcap ping 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Bösendorfer (piano)

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

– The article is nothing else than promotion, it does not cite any references or sources, and it got lists that only can be for promotional reasons.
– The template for speedy deletion ({{db-g11}}) has been removed by a user without he made any comments on the discussion page and without he made any changes in the article. The article is all the same, and it has not changed at all apart from the templates. This removing of the speedy deletion template is against what the template says (See Template:Db-g11).
– The non-promotional information in the article is already in the article Bösendorfer, so there is absolutely no need for this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have the necessary musical background to accurately assess the reliability or otherwise of sources here. But my understanding is that individual Bosendorfer models, particularly top-end ones such as the Imperial, are the musical equivalent of prestige cars and could theoretically found an article on similar terms to the Porsche RS Spyder. Tori Amos' love for (and advocation of) individual Bosendorfer brands is certainly a matter of public record (she does a regular bit in her sets called "Tori and Bo" where she does acoustic numbers on the piano) and that'd probably be the first place to go looking for both notability and sourcing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment just above – I agree that Wikipedia could have an article about the Bösendorfer piano Imperial and articles about other piano brand's models. The problem here is that the article created back in 2007 is of a poor standard and has not changed much since the creation in 2007. Fanoftheworld (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're in agreement that Wikipedia COULD have an article on this topic, how about just pruning the article back to a non-controversial stub and withdrawing the deletion nomination? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment just above – Because the non-promotional, and some of the promotional, information in the article is already in the Bösendorfer article, so there is no reason for having this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. DustFormsWords is absolutely correct in his statement that the Imperial Bösendorfer is separate and distinct from smaller grands of the same manufacturer, (including the nine additional keys which are unique in any piano brand), and thus deserves its own page. The article does need better sourcing, and I will work on getting that added.THD3 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment just above – Ones again, the problem about the article is not the subject "Imperial Bösendorfer piano". The problem is that the article is of an extremely poor quality! It has 3-4 lines and 2 promotional lists. The information in the article is already in the Bösendorfer article, so there is absolutely no reason for having this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). The article is created back in 2007 and there has been very very few editors to the article, so the problem about an extremely poor quality has been for years.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor quality is not a deletion criterion; the proper thing to do with an article that is poorly written is to rewrite it. If removing promotional tone results in a stub, so be it. — Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Comments - There are some points been made here that are not appropriate for a deletion discussion, per WP precedent. For example, WP:UGLY states that an article should not be deleted just because it is of poor quality. and WP:NOEFFORT says an article should not be deleted just because nobody is working on it. Unfortunately, these days it appears that an AfD is more effective than edit tags in drawing attention to an article that needs help. I am personally undecided on this one, not being an expert on piano manufacturing and marketing, but I can say that parts of this discussion are out of tune. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Once again, the article is nothing else than promotion, and it got lists that only can be for promotional reasons. Therefore I would say that the article is of a poor quality, but if you would like me to use the words "blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic" (Template:Advert, Template:Db-g11) then I will do that. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In-line citations of independent sources will improve it, and I've supplied three (diff) [now four]. Incidentally, the nominator's claim that the user who wrote the article removed the {{db-g11}} tag "against what the template says" is false: it was I who removed the tag. I saw the link in the CSD category, read the article and its history, declined speedy deletion, and recommended an AfD discussion (diff). Fanoftheworld added the db-g11 tag again 35 minutes later (diff); two hours after that, I saw the tag was back and removed it, again recommending AfD (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 22:00 and 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment just above – Yes, I know you removed the tag, [46]. I have not "... claim[ed] that the user who wrote the article removed the {{db-g11}} tag...". Read what I have written in the beginning of this page. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – per THD3. Needs pruning, but is definitely notable ^Pepper∙_piggle 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Each of the references specifies the model name "Imperial" as distinct from other Bosendorfer models. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- obviously different from standard pianos, and article has been significantly improved since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinehurst School (Ontario)

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

No claim of notability; nothing in Gnews, does not yet have notable alumni nor does it seem to be particularly unique in any other way; only reference is its own website. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A private boarding school with 20-30 students? It's going to take some serious outside coverage to make it notable, and I can't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NJMNP&z=NJMNG&p_theme=njmnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=128467E53AAEC420&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=NorthJerseyMediaGroup. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/FRC_Communications_Resource_Center/Presentations/FRC_Overview.ppt. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NJMNP&z=NJMNG&p_theme=njmnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=128467E53AAEC420&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=NorthJerseyMediaGroup. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttp://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/FRC_Communications_Resource_Center/Presentations/FRC_Overview.ppt. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]