Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 24
- 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Pavlou[edit]
- Louis Pavlou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Artist does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It appears he is a session drummer who one worked with the Cure on an album that they used 5 different drummers, can't find much else. J04n(talk page) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:50, 24 May 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 keep. Nominator was a sockpuppet, no other deletion arguments. Fences&Windows 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson's syndrome[edit]
- Wilson's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
With all respect for any sufferers of this syndrome, I am questioning the notability of this article which looks like average, basic, well-intentioned nonsense to me. Since the median oral body temperature (among healthy adults) is actually less than the 98.6 he demands (and which old textbooks taught), it's clear that more than half the adults in the U.S. will qualify for this so-called 'diagnosis.' Is this really WP:Notable? <redacted> Kalakitty talk 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck, sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources is present although not extensive (including mainstream newspaper coverage, statement from a relevant professional body [American Thyroid Association], Mayo Clinic website, and [marginally] Quackwatch). Whether or not this is "nonsense" has no bearing on its notability. On the other hand, the article could use more impartial eyes and perhaps fewer dedicated proponents. MastCell Talk 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nominator's rationale for deletion is not persuasive. The article in its current form is documenting a diagnosis which is said to be quackish, or a hoax. The sources to establish that seem good. If you think the article should be deleted, it would be better to persuade us that the hoax is so insignificant and believed by so few that it's not notable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a notable hoax. There's no convincing evidence that the disease exists, but there is lots of convincing evidence that many people think it exists. There have also been numerous sources [1] [2] reviewing the case and concluding it is not a medically justified diagnosis. It may be wrong, but it is notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article shows remarkable balance, explaining what the syndrome is said to be, and then what the medical community says about it, all without notable POV problems. I agree with MastCell, the fact that the diagnosis is nonsense doesn't change the notability of the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, could use more impartial eyes, I will initiate dispute resolution since no Third Opinion has been given. MedBoard2 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a notable fringe theory, not accepted as a vadlid syndrome by the Mayo Clinic or most medical doctors. Many good sources attest to its notability. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please: Would any of the editors who have commented here care to watchlist the page? It tends to get a lot of IP and SPA drive-by edits removing the independent, reliable sources which fail to promote Wilson's syndrome, and I suspect few if any people are watching it. Any outside eyes would be much appreciated. MastCell Talk 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for all of the reasons stated by the sage editors that have voted before me. Verkhovensky (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has independent comment made by the mayo clinic and quackwatch. Therefore notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The discussion of what it's supposed to be, as well as the Florida State Medical Board's disciplining of its proponent, was most useful. I'm amazed this guy named the "syndrome" after himself, when most of what he says is just the recycled claims of Broda Otto Barnes, who died a year or two before Dr. Wilson took over his "schtick." SBHarris 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh God. Don't mention that name... MastCell Talk 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My real-world experience tells me that this is notable in the real-world sense, and therefore important to document in Wikipedia. Specifically, I first heard of Wilson's syndrome when a friend was given this diagnosis by a fully credentialed mainstream medical doctor (not named Wilson), who had provided a plausible-sounding set of explanations for the diagnosis of the syndrome and the treatment with T3. When I researched Wilson's syndrome, I was disturbed (on my friend's behalf) about the hazards inherent in the T3 treatment. This was several years ago, and ever since that time I've "followed" this topic (albeit on-again, off-again). The article has been on my watchlist for a long time, and I've made a few edits to it, but I have to confess that folks like MastCell make me feel inadequate to deal with the issues that arise there. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't feel too bad. As you may know, (think of PTSD or autism spectrum) diagnoses in medicine, and treatments too, come and go partly by fashion. The same is true in the rest of science. Over the long haul, it self corrects, but over the short haul, you see the same stuff get hot, then cold, then hot, then cold. Treatment of people who are depressed with sympathomimetics (and their proxies) goes through these cycles. We get Dr. Feelgoods every generation. Fifteen years ago it was the rage for shrinks to treat the depressed elderly with small doses of T3, as a pepper-upper. And lo! It works! Since T3 is an upregulator of all the same receptors that Ritalin sticks to. There is a connection. If it weren't for the bone loss and heart arrhythmias, it might be a good treatment for the blahs in everybody, like coffee. You know? It's probably safer to use Ritalin. And that happens, too. SBHarris 02:49, 27 May 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) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oontz[edit]
- Oontz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed by creator. Trivial topic, no reliable sources, strikes me as unlikely any could be found. Prezbo (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as a dictionary definition. This is essetnailly an onomatopoeiac word used to describe a beat. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 26 May 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy[edit]
- University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:BLP1E, this is a marginally notable model, and the article is all about one minor incident in her life. Was originally at Roseleena Blair, then moved to Expulsion of Roseleena Blair from the University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team by User:Mayumashu per "the notability of this matter is not her but her expulsion", then moved to this title by me because that title violated BLP (IMHO). Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Let alone the poor sourcing and likely WP:BLP concerns, the claimed notability of this event to demand coverage by an encyclopedia is highly dubious. Pedro : Chat 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article subject is not notable for one event per WP:NOTNEWS, and is not notable as an athlete per WP:ATH...she has not competed above college-level or participated in the Olympics. And this article title is somewhat misleading...the article is about one tennis player at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, not the whole team (which is where BLP comes in...) Bobby Tables (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced BLP about an nn model/amateur athlete which until today was riddled with BLP violations. One of many college athletes who tripped over NCAA eligibility regs, receiving a flash of press coverage only because she was paid by Playboy rather than a local business or college booster. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely not news in any way at all. With the many variations on this article's title in the past, salting of this and past titles is highly suggested as someone seems to have something against this woman which highly violates WP:BLP. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a random athletic suspension, not an encyclopedic subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of the more extreme WP:BLP1E articles, and not even based on a notable one event. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Person isn't article-worthy (WP:ONEEVENT), event isn't article-worthy (WP:NOTNEWS). A yawner. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as clear WP:BLP1E (and FWIW not sure that this title is any better than just Roseleena Blair). ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My theory was that this title wouldn't show up as high in the results if "Roseleena Blair" was Googled; I admitted somewhere (ANI?) that this article title sucked. I toyed with renaming it Delete this Article, but figured someone would complain I was poisoning the well... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 25 May 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 Wayzata Public Schools. Merges may be undertaken at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wayzata Central Middle School[edit]
- Wayzata Central Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Central is no more notable than any other middle school, as far as I know, and thus is not notable. Zarel (talk⋅c) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Zarel (talk⋅c) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- Wayzata West Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect both pages to Wayzata Public Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect both schools as is usually done with middle schools. There's nothing about these two schools to justify an exception. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 30 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States[edit]
- List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A user who's searching for information about rape crisis centres might be badly in need of help, and they also might not be in a very clear state of mind. Wikipedia doesn't normally publish telephone numbers, but I see that Rape crisis center has the National Sexual Assault Helpline number written in the lede, in bold face—which, I think, shows remarkably good judgment. There are a few times when we ought to ignore the rules and find a way to point users to the information they need no matter what. (It's a pity all this isn't much help if the person who's been raped isn't American, but you can't have everything.)
This article is linked from various "danger zone" search terms such as Rape,Sexual assault and Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wanting to delete it because of NOTDIR is a bit scary, frankly. I wonder how many people have needed to refer to this list... My !vote is strong keep.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 04:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you under the impression that this is a vote?—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am under the impression that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the yellow pages or a link repository. People often seem to forget that. When it comes to the inclusion or exclusion of content, the question should not (only) be 'might it be helpful to some user' but also 'is the content encyclopedic?' SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And for 99.9% of articles, you're entirely correct. This is one of the 0.01%, though, where rigorous application of policy needs to be tempered with editorial judgment, and I think it's a child protection issue. A child who's subject to sexual assault might well be in the same home as the assaulter, and not be able to use the phone unobserved. But that child might be able to quickly use a computer while hiding the screen. Getting help, for that child, is time-critical. When they google for "Rape", they'll find Wikipedia as one of the top search terms, which means there's a very good chance that they'll end up finding this list as their way to get help. But without it, they'll need to go back to google and repeat their search under time pressure. Without wanting to be overly dramatic, this is a decision that could potentially have a very serious impact on someone, and personally I find these considerations a lot more important than an online encyclopaedia's content guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not want to see people being harmed because they cannot find information on the Internet, however, the vast majority of Internet users will realise that WP is an encyclopedia rather than a directory and seek assistance for protection elsewhere. This article is one of the few articles that I have seen that list websites for those who are subjected to violence. WP does not list police stations!! S Marshall, your humanitarian goals are laudable but they should be tempered with rational thinking about how people get assistance in times of danger. Virtually everybody would use the telephone to contact emergency services if any threats are imminent and use a search engine to find the appropriate contact details if there is no immediate danger. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And for 99.9% of articles, you're entirely correct. This is one of the 0.01%, though, where rigorous application of policy needs to be tempered with editorial judgment, and I think it's a child protection issue. A child who's subject to sexual assault might well be in the same home as the assaulter, and not be able to use the phone unobserved. But that child might be able to quickly use a computer while hiding the screen. Getting help, for that child, is time-critical. When they google for "Rape", they'll find Wikipedia as one of the top search terms, which means there's a very good chance that they'll end up finding this list as their way to get help. But without it, they'll need to go back to google and repeat their search under time pressure. Without wanting to be overly dramatic, this is a decision that could potentially have a very serious impact on someone, and personally I find these considerations a lot more important than an online encyclopaedia's content guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does not violate the policy WP:NOTDIR. It is within the scope of wikipedia to create entries for lists of organizations. It is very common. This is not the kind of loose list of data for which that policy was created to prevent an entry. Read the policy and look at the article again. The subject is clear and well defined. Wikipedia can be used as an Almanac by policy.
Deleting this article on those grounds would amount to challenge what I believe is a very well established category, [Category:Lists of organizations] Maziotis (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand what the problem is. The category referenced by Maziotis contains dozens of such lists; they don't seem to violate any WP policy. Arguments about who might or might not need the page, and for what purpose, are irrelevant; the page is acceptable on its own merits. BTW I suggest that someone also create a redirect pointing to this page, called something like "List of rape crisis centers", since that may be a more likely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 30 May 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) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Falk[edit]
- Alexander Falk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN biography. Part of a series of promotional articles about this person's company, Altova Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing on Google or Google News to indicate he is notable. (There are several other people named Alexander Falk who generate more hits than he does.) I would suggest merging to his company, Altova, but perhaps someone should consider that article for deletion as well; I found no reliable sources to establish its notability, and Google News provides nothing but press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 30 May 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) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stevan Plinck[edit]
- Stevan Plinck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite being a supposedly "well-known" martial artist, there are no sources cited whatsoever, and remarkably few mentions of this person on the Web apart from sites promoting sales of his videos. No sources have been supplied by any editor since the article was created at the end of 2007. Was prod'ed in January 2010 but contested in May and undeleted. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first three google pages are nothing but promotions for the guy's DVDs and books. I see nothing that seems like a third party recognizing Plinck as notable. Uucp (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are some passing mentions of the subject in Black Belt magazine, but I have not found anything substantial to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another case where the article doesn't even make a good case for notability. Mentioning his students and teacher doesn't show notability since it's not inherited. His students aren't even famous for being martial artists. Looks more like PR to me. Astudent0 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like the previous editors, my searches haven't found anything notable about this person. He clearly seems to fail WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 27 May 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 deleted per CSD R2: cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, after being userfied and nomination withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uppersia tour operator[edit]
- Uppersia tour operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request Salt. Speedy deleted three times, keeps coming back complete with speedy tags and hangon already in place. Non-notable, spammy, no reliable sources. If no salt allowed, request AfD deletion instead of speedy this time so can do WP:G4 speedys in future. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Page creator has partially userfied the page by copy–and–pasting a copy into his user space (q.v. discussion). If he/she completes the userfication by blanking, redirecting, and asking for a speedy of the existing mainspace page, I will withdraw this AfD/salt nomination. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn — The article creator has shown good faith and come through and completed the userfication. I truly believe that this creator's struggle is with understanding, not tendentiousness. I would, therefore, request that this nomination be closed as withdrawn. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:49, 25 May 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) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romaya Puchman[edit]
- Romaya Puchman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I personally can't find reliable, secondary sources (any) via Google News, Web to base an article on. Article has been marked unsourced for three years. Joe Decker (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with the nom, can not find any sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 27 May 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 1896 Summer Olympics. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics[edit]
- Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. There were no sailing events at the 1896 Games. The primary reference is the official report, which mentions on pages 108–109 (228–229 of the pdf file) a regatta to be held on April 1 but was cancelled due to weather. This fact is already mentioned (with a cited reference) in the parent article at 1896 Summer Olympics#Events, so this information would not be lost by this article's deletion. But at WP:WikiProject Olympics, we have consensus to not create new articles for events that didn't take place. There are not enough reliable secondary sources to support an entire article on this topic; all that exists in the article now are half-empty infoboxes and tables, and non-notable content paraphrased from the official report. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As the nom states, there was no sailing at the 1896 Olympics. Thus we shouldn't have an article for it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As member of Wikiproject Sailing : the consensus of WikiProject Olympics is good, but sailing was really scheduled in 1896. This (short) article, needing no more informations, is written in the continuity of the others (1900, 1904...). Other articles link to this one, and it will create much more problems to user NED33 if the article is deleted, than to WP if WikiProject Olympics members agree to keep it. As user NED33 is improving a lot of articles about Sailing at Olympics, I suggest to consider the whole presentation of the subject, not only this particular article.--Barbetorte (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Waste of time to update related tables, and something else annoying about letter and spirit of the law (the consensus) ! And few editors on sailing articles, able to correct existing mistakes, especially at the beginning of 1900's...--Barbetorte (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the 1896 Olympics article, as it mentions that sailing was cancelled. Usefule redirect as part of a series of articles named thusly. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect as a sensible solution. Information is still available about there being no event, and we have an appropriate term that will direct the reader to the information. It's a win, win! -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a redirect will screw up the infobox on Sailing at the Summer Olympics, which uses the #ifexist parser function to create a link, or render the year in gray. By keeping a redirect, the infobox will make it look like the event was held in 1896. In many cases, I agree that redirection is more useful than deletion, but not in this specific case. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:47, 27 May 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QA Wizard Pro[edit]
- QA Wizard Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the sources given are either self-published or incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious advertising (developed by Seapine Software, a leader in ALM industry) for run of the mill software without any historical, technical, or cultural significance (provides functional and regression test automation for 32-bit/64-bit Windows, Web, and Java applications with advanced object binding capabilities). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are thousands of large companies which do use this software (what companies are going to widely advertise every backend tool they use?), and the feature set it has is wider than most other offerings (which currently have articles in wikipedia but aren't marked for deletion). I have been working to compare several of the offerings in this area, but it is this one which actually functions the best and at a price that isn't shameful. Article can't be self-promoting because I'm the author and am developer evaluating several similar tools including one from Microsoft. The mention by InfoTech is not an incidental mention and in fact compares top offerings showing this tool as leading. SlightlybentOR (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as not technically significant, I've update the article to include mention of ability to create an OCR checkpoint. That's an advanced feature not found in any but the most expensive automation tools. yet, QAWP is low cost. That's significant. SlightlybentOR (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To sum up my Keep arguments: 1) there are other less significant GUI QA automation tools currently with articles on wikipedia so if this page is removed then many others on that list should also be taken down. 2) QAWP has features which even some of the expensive automation tools do not possess (such as the Optical Character Recognition checkpoint feature). So that alone is a reason to keep as that is a technically significant feature. And to add a further thought: 3) This tool is used by Enterprises and software development companies, and is therefore of interest not to the general public (other than of interest as the type of tools used by industry) yet is significant even while not having wide coverage. SlightlybentOR (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re 1, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid Keep argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate coverage satisfying the general notability guideline. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks the level of coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:21, 30 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists[edit]
- Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mid-level administrative subdivision of Seventh Day Adventist Church. Appears to fail WP:CORP, lacking stand-alone notability. I can foresee either an outright deletion, or a merge up to the national church article, and leave it up to the community to determine its fate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added sources, it now passes WP:GNG. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 03:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Rather large organization with plenty of hits. If this doesn't meet notability, what do we do with all the articles on small organizations? WikiManOne (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- an organisation with 150 churches and 50 schools ought to be notable. We have articles on Anglican dioceses, so why not the equivalent for other denominations. Nevertheless, I would have exoected to see a few more blue links in the article. Does it need wikifying? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 30 May 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) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ilsa Strix[edit]
- Ilsa Strix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Being romantically involved with a notable person does not confer notability -- clear case of WP:BLP1E Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete The one reference barely mentions her. "Community theatre" ???? !!!!! :-) --Simon Speed (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alio The Fool 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no genuine claim of notability. Claritas (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This fellow was pretty famous, in the 90's. Gattosby (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This fellow......? Read the article before you !vote, please......--Claritas (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Inniverse (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Hence the ! in !vote, referring to the C operator ! for "not". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Inniverse (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This fellow......? Read the article before you !vote, please......--Claritas (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Numerous google and news hits. Take a look here. Independent references include the New York post[3] and other reliable sources. Inniverse (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, if someone is in a relationship with someone notable, and have not received coverage in reliable sources outside of this role, they are not notable. Claritas (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lionelt (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Extrabatteries (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete completely unnotable person. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO, being randomly mentioned as being in a relationship with a notable person does not make them notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much more than a random mention. Did you even look at the Gnews graph here? The news broke about the relationship in 2003, and yet reliable news articles are still being published about this woman in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The only reason being given for delete is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Inniverse (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as the graph is irrelevant. It is the actual articles I look at, and none of those articles are significant coverage about HER, rather about her husband with mentions of her on the side. It has nothing to do with "i like it" or "I don't" but basic Wikipedia policy and avoiding having an article on a unnotable person that serves no purpose but to act as a gossip rag or a one-line bio. And it is is still BLP1E - she had no coverage before her marriage to him, and still has no significant coverage on her own. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much more than a random mention. Did you even look at the Gnews graph here? The news broke about the relationship in 2003, and yet reliable news articles are still being published about this woman in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The only reason being given for delete is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Inniverse (talk) 14:10, 29 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cris Ericson USMJP[edit]
- Cris Ericson USMJP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find evidence that this political candidate meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without improvement of article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article/puff piece on non notable election candidate. Valenciano (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Simply being on the ballot is not enough to confer notability. He has never held office. BTW the article is so badly written, it sounds like the writer was under the influence of the product his party promotes. Not worth rewriting since it's on a fast track to be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 30 May 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) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Great Britain (1603-1714)[edit]
- Kingdom of Great Britain (1603-1714) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A nice bit of original research, but unsupported by mainstream historiography, which holds that there was no Kingdom of Great Britain until 1707, when the previously separate Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland united. Yes, the two were under the same monarch from 1603 to 1707, but that is amply covered in the proper context by Union of the Crowns. Biruitorul Talk 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs expert attention There seems to be a difference of opinion between the two articles Kingdom of Great Britain and Union of the Crowns. This had better be sorted out by people with a greater understanding of British history than I have. If one article represents a totally individual view then it should be deleted. If both are valid views then there should be one article that explains both, even if one is less popular. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Duplicate material from Union of the Crowns and Early Modern Britain and several other articles which cover the material in greater depth with better sources. Spotty information at best as well because it skips the entire Civil War and the Restoration.--Savonneux (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete excessive amounts of HTML and nonstandard non-Wikipedia formatting. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rename. The creator of this article (see for example here) refers to evidence that James VI and I called his domain the Kingdome of Great Britaine (or Britiane, it's not clear) and maintains that this is sufficient to claim that the (United) Kingdom was in existence 100 years before the date accepted by historians. This almost makes the article FRINGE and OR (original research). The article might merit a save if renamed to something like Monarchy of England and Scotland (1603-1714), but as others have said the issue is covered by Union of the Crowns, which itself is tagged for improvement. Sussexonian (talk) 14:21, 26 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
… Of Hate and Blood[edit]
- … Of Hate and Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 May 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oxeon[edit]
- Oxeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Swedish manufacturer of specialised fabrics. This image description confirms the author's COI. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Rettetast (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Interest seems quite specialized but searching for the product names rather than just the company name may help improve references. I'm fairly convinced by the references for product use in Formula 1 cars that WP:ORG has been met using reasonable independent references. It's a pity that someone deleting the AfD tag makes this look unnecessarily suspicious. Fæ (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, all three footnotes originate from Oxeon press releases and are not independently sourced. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking on board your comments, I have checked through sources available in Google News. I find Netcomposites, Fibre2Fashion, Advanced Composites Bulletin and JEC Composites. I find it hard to believe that all sources for this industry are only regurgitating press releases with no editorial control (though I can believe that some are). I suggest this AfD continue in order to reach a consensus rather than deleting with no discussion. Yes, a sock may have been involved in promoting this company but that does not invalidate verifiable sources. Fæ (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not all the sourcing is dependent on the company, butWith the exception of two sources on a hockey stick recall, neither mentioning Oxeon, it appears that all the sourcing for this article consists either of press releases or republications of press releases in industry publications. The aspect that you cite, on Formula One, is directly sourced to company press releases and as best as I can see has not received independent, verifiable coverage. The efforts by this company to promote itself in Wikipedia make it incumbent to examine carefully all claims and "sourcing" provided in this article. For instance, there is a footnote to an article in CompositesWorld. [4]. But I searched google and found substantially the same article posted elsewhere [link cannot be posted], replete with the same quotes and much the same material, credited at the bottom to "Oxeon AB." The reason Wikipedia can't host an article like this, without independent sourcing, is that we may well be doing an injustice to other companies providing similar or competitive products that do not have an employee editing Wikipedia. Note: I was prevented from posting the second link because the link was on the spam blacklist!!!ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking on board your comments, I have checked through sources available in Google News. I find Netcomposites, Fibre2Fashion, Advanced Composites Bulletin and JEC Composites. I find it hard to believe that all sources for this industry are only regurgitating press releases with no editorial control (though I can believe that some are). I suggest this AfD continue in order to reach a consensus rather than deleting with no discussion. Yes, a sock may have been involved in promoting this company but that does not invalidate verifiable sources. Fæ (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, all three footnotes originate from Oxeon press releases and are not independently sourced. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Advertising for non-notable company. Created by company official using user account "Donald Draper" and sockpuppet "Richie tenenbaum." See [5]. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Speedy Delete. Created by an admitted company employee who has been brazenly spamming Wikipedia with advertising for this company. Article speedied by Pascal Tesson as unambiguous advertising on 5/21; On 5/24 this article and at least one other spam article, also speedied, was recreated by the same editor, who is an admitted officer of the company. Article creator is using a sockpuppet, "Richie tenenbaum" to remove maintenance, afd and speedy templates. Wikipedia is not an advertising directory and we should not countenance this kind of behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just realized that this article was previously deleted, but was re-created by this user. It has been listed again for speedy deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Floridly non-neutral in tone: Oxeon now is a leading actor in Spread Tow Fabrics, using their novel spreading technology.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-written some of the text to neutralize the tone. Tone of itself is a poor reason for deletion. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and I commend Fæ for his good work on the article. However, what's left does not demonstrate notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-written some of the text to neutralize the tone. Tone of itself is a poor reason for deletion. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 26 May 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) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Runway Magazine[edit]
- Runway Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe that this publication is notable, I believe this Wikipedia article is for advertising purposes. I cannot find significant coverage of it in multiple reliable sources. What I can find is an interview with Nole Marin on a fashion website in January that says that "Runway Magazine is a new publication, and I am their fashion editor. It’s in the infancy stage and hopefully the publication will develop into something of value."[6] His own words suggest that it is not (yet?) notable. Fences&Windows 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—absence of sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Sources in the article are barely sufficient to establish existence, insufficient to establish any notability. This might be salvageable with improved sources if they exist, but in the meantime there are plenty of non-notable glossy fashion magazines out there. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertisement thinly disguised as an article; also fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with a redirect to The Devil Wears Prada, which is almost certainly what any reader will be looking for. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article appears to be here only to support a very specious claim that the trademark existed prior to the movie. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources provided or found in gnews search. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/locked redirect to The Devil Wears Prada. Pretty much lots of puffery for a very non-notable magazine trading on a fictional name to get traction and filled with editors who have not bent to the consensus to redirect in any way at all. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claim of notability; fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 25 May 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) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Biscarrat[edit]
- Benjamin Biscarrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
if he actually exists, he does not meet WP:Notability requirements for a tennis player Mayumashu (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A name like that is easily searchable, and very little comes up (I found one mention in a local tennis tournament). There is certainly nothing that verifies him being runner up in the US Amateur Championship, which is the only real claim to notability. I would want to see verified ATP Tour participation for the inclusion of a tennis player, or at the least some verifiable major amateur success.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I contribute quite a bit to tennis on WP and there s virtually no way a 20 year old would not have played in at least a few ITF Futures tournaments, given the claim made about the amateur success, not to mention the Orange Bowl (tennis) and other prestigous youth tournaments. Almost certainly the tennis claim here is bogus, and it is the only real, viable one for WP notability, I agree Mayumashu (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He is mentioned here and [7] in local press covering local sports, but that's very local. I checked the ATP site and he is not on the ATP Tour. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 26 May 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koshijin[edit]
- Koshijin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Completely non-notable, possibly even non-existent. Zero hits on Google scholar for this word and the two on Google books seem irrelevant. No article for 高志人 on the Japanese wikipedia. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved article to appropriate name, added sources... not only is it not non-existent, i'd say it's notable as well. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article is now apparently Koshibito. I can read just one relevant hit on Google Books: Cortazzi, Hugh (1983). Isles of gold: antique maps of Japan. Weatherhill. p. 54. ISBN 0834801841. which states "Before the Nara period (710-82), all of northeastern Japan including Tohoku was called Koshi, and its inhabitants were called Koshibito by the Japanese. (Koshibito literally means 'People from over the other side')". This seems inconsistent with the current article, and is surely not enough for either verifiability or notability ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you've accidentally omitted a couple of other relevant hits: Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan. Vol. 37. 1965. p. 261. and Sansaisha, ed. (1907). Mélanges japonais. Harvard U. p. 158-61., in which it is noted: ces premiers émigrants formèrent plusieurs tribus que l'on appela... Koshi-bito... and then parmi les Koshi-bito, la plupart arrivèrent directement des côtes de Corée et de Mandchourie... In fact, the information in all the sources seems to line up pretty well, including repeated mentions of their region of origin (they are named after Koshi Province - "bito" means person, so this is only natural). --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Japanese people until/if enough information can be found to support a separate article. The one reference mentioned above is certainly enough for that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep based on the sources found and added by Node ue. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Within a few seconds, I found several paper references and couple of online references as well, thanks to Google, a couple of which I have given in a comment above. The article may currently be a stub, but that alone doesn't mean in my view that it should be deleted. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. I think it best to withdraw this AFD as the article has been renamed and sources for the correct name have been provided. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 25 May 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) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sexasaurus[edit]
- Sexasaurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was redirected to R.Kelly but User:Padillah has objected. Not a notable concept on its own. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only basis I have found for this is a single lyric in one song refering to himself as a Sexasaurus. This is in no way a wide spread colloquial for the artist and has no reason to exist as a redirect. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. In fact, doesn't this page meet WP:CSD G3? Akerans (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Non-notable neologism. mono 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 25 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel of Fortune (board game)[edit]
- Wheel of Fortune (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails notability guidelines and topic does not warrant individual article. Wheel_of_Fortune (U.S. game show)#Merchandise already contains adequate information describing the home game available. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because article is related to this debate and deletion reasons are similar as this nomination:
Wheel of Fortune (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete This belongs on a game show or home game enthusiast site, not here. Unsourced fancruft for a subject with an interest only notable to a select few. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect — to Wheel of Fortune, possible mentioning game in article. mono 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trim down on both articles. Especially with the video games, there is definitely notability there. –MuZemike 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. This article seriously has no reliable sources available. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the video game article, neutral on the board games till I've looked for sources. In fact, leaving the video games in is going to muddy this discussion, it would be advisable to strike them and concentrate on the board game. A great deal of the sources for the older video games are locked away in magazines, but there are some online like [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Those are all from good reliable sites (IGN, GameSpot, Gamezebo, allgame), that's where I stopped copying and pasting rather than ran out of sources. Their collective notability really shouldn't be up for debate. Someoneanother 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, you shall all be spanked with further videogame sourceage: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Serves you bloody right. Someoneanother 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are merely reviews of the video games. They do not provide any reasonable proof that this topic is notable enough to warrant an entire separate article outside of the television show. Sources that prove the video games merely exist do not provide any additional case toward proving the topic notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Video game articles are usually crafted primarily from reviews, which are no less usable as sources than any other kind of article. Notability is demonstrated when there are multiple, non-trivial and reliable secondary sources. That's what's there, what else are you expecting? Someoneanother 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) are notable enough to warrant articles. The various board and video game versions of Wheel of Fortune have not even remotely reached a level of notability to warrant articles here. The links you've presented are merely reviews of gameplay – they do not prove notability as some of the sources listed in Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) do. The information in these articles belongs on BoardGameGeek or a video game wiki, not here. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability you're referring to is a standard of your own making, though you haven't explained what that standard actually is, pointing at one of the most famous video games of all time doesn't elaborate and calling legitimate sources "merely reviews" isn't making your point. The notability guideline has been met in regards to a single article on the subject of WoF video games due to the number of non-trivial secondary sources from reliable websites which are above. You are welcome to leave it bundled in this AFD, but there's as much chance of it being deleted as Lucifer skating to work next week and it's taking attention away from the article which may not meet WP:N. Someoneanother 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) are notable enough to warrant articles. The various board and video game versions of Wheel of Fortune have not even remotely reached a level of notability to warrant articles here. The links you've presented are merely reviews of gameplay – they do not prove notability as some of the sources listed in Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) do. The information in these articles belongs on BoardGameGeek or a video game wiki, not here. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Video game articles are usually crafted primarily from reviews, which are no less usable as sources than any other kind of article. Notability is demonstrated when there are multiple, non-trivial and reliable secondary sources. That's what's there, what else are you expecting? Someoneanother 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reviewed video games clearly pass the notability guidelines, although obviously the article needs some verification work. Perhaps we can focus on the boardgames? WP:PRODUCT explains what to do. Since many of the articles for the companies already have their product lists split off, I see no reason not to retain this article as a "List of" - although yes, verification needs some attention. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – I've removed Wheel of Fortune (video game) from the nomination to focus only on Wheel of Fortune (board game).
- 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. G7 - author blanked Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Affluent Page Magazine[edit]
- The Affluent Page Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD - non-notable private publication (also two editors edit-warring over it at the moment) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I meant to say that I haven't properly investigated this and I'm currently neutral on it - I brought it here because the PROD was removed without any Talk page comment, and it looks like it does need some examination with respect to possible deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:45, 24 May 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 userfy to User:Sohinder by JzG (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh[edit]
- Dr.Sohinder Bir Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested BLPPROD without adding sources. Non-notable poet. A single reference in GHits (Chandigarh Tribune) out of 6 results, single GNews hit (passing mention in Chandigarh Tribune), single GBooks hit (a transcript of papers presented at a folklore conference), no GScholar hits. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. GregJackP (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No indication that awards are significant, no sources fails WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — No sources causes article to fail WP:BIO. mono 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced and no evidence of notability from web searches, plus apparent WP:AUTOBIO. My reading of WP:BLPPROD# Objecting is that you're not allowed to remove the {{prod blp}} template without adding sources and the nominator could have just reinstated it instead of bringing it to AfD. Qwfp (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's my view too, but there apparently is a difference of opinion about that among both editors and admins. So since there is such disagreement, it is easier to bring it to an AfD. I'm not inclined to get into an ongoing edit war over a BLPPROD, though I will state that if it is just like a PROD, that can be contested by anyone without adding references, it is pretty worthless. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:05, 25 May 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 a7, affirmatively asserts *non*-notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edward oelcher[edit]
- Edward oelcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested speedy. Non-notable blogger. Zero reliable sources in GHits. Zero GNews/GBooks/GScholar hits. GregJackP (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under A7 as vanitycruft. It even claims that he's unpopular. Claritas (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (probably speedy A7 or maybe G3) - Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Also, I think the account that removed the db tag is the same as the author but I don't really see a need to instigate a SPI right now. After creating the article and making edits, the author stops and 4 minutes later, another account continues to make similar edits to the same page until it stops and the author begins making similar edits again after three minutes. Both accounts have only edited this page. OlYellerTalktome 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article was previously speedily deleted A7. GregJackP (talk) 15:55, 24 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Beve Trophy[edit]
- The Beve Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable amateur golf tournament that fails WP:N and WP:EVENT. Lack of any significant media coverage means it also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nomination. mono 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 12:11, 30 May 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 nomination withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courtney MacIntosh[edit]
- Courtney MacIntosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual, does not meet WP:ATHLETE, no substantial improvements since May 8. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator — My mistake. Does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE but since the Commonwealth Games do satisfy WP:NSPORT, and since the Commonwealth Rowing Championships is a parallel event that was once part of the Commonwealth Games, it seems her medals in that competition ought to be enough, so I withdraw the nomination and ask that it be closed as withdrawn. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:52, 24 May 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 Procedural Close in favor of Redirects for Discussion, where I have posted a nomination with the below rationale copied over. The new nomination is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 24#Politics of Bihar. I will also notify the nom. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politics of Bihar[edit]
- Politics of Bihar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
had speedy-tagged this redirect, as this is the proper naming for the article per WPMOS, now at the incorrectly and badly named Bihar's Politics. Speedy was declined because "redirect has a long history", which is meaningless if the article needs to be occupying that space. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:37, 24 May 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) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ingrid Vakaslavik[edit]
- Ingrid Vakaslavik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod contested by a new account with only one edit (contesting this article). I am unable to verify this is a real person and can't find any mentions in either English or Russian (apart from Wikipedia mirrors). Possibly a hoax.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 14:33 (UTC)
- Delete: I found zero sources also. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 08:44, 25 May 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) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Reborn[edit]
- Blood Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not see anything notable about this game. There are no reliable VG source hits on it. Google hits are directory entries at best. — Hellknowz ▎talk 11:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Hellknowz ▎talk 11:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I could not find anything either. In fact, I tagged the article when I found out about this AFD at WP:VG/D (which the nomination was imcomplete; I completed). –MuZemike 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge... which means make a mention of it in the original article because there's 1 sentence of content here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that even this single sentence cannot be verified via a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fan-created games and "amateur recreations" are not notable unless they separately meet the requirements of WP:N, and no assertion of such is made in the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:31, 26 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mickey Finn (drink)[edit]
- Mickey Finn (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. I cannot find significant coverage of this drink, almost every reference in the article was written by the company, and the rest are brief mentions. - EdoDodo talk 12:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The drink is primarily sold in Ireland and the UK and has a sizeable following, demonstrated by the number of followers on BEBO: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3454460358
Also the fact that they are sponsoring the driver that is currently top of the GP3 standings demonstrates that they are a brand which has unique appeal.
It is also sold by Tesco, one of the biggest supermarket chains in the Uk and is the second most bought liqueur in Ireland.
Pictures inlcude: http://www.onlineofflicence.ie/products/1258389891.jpg
The brand also sponsors the Irish cocktail making competition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1uizabx6nY
They are also involved with the bar wizards who have some notability: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGsSf5bV6Fg
Given the fact that they have such a prominent position in the Irish and UK markets, I feel they justify an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doylewiki (talk • contribs) 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then we can have some RS suppooting notability.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We are told "the fact that they are sponsoring the driver that is currently top of the GP3 standings demonstrates that they are a brand which has unique appeal". Surely that just tells us that the manufacturers have paid to get publicity for their product, or have I missed something? In any case, "has unique appeal" is not a claim of notability by Wikipedia's criteria. Doylewiki's other arguments are also of little or no relevance. For example, the fact that it is sold by Tesco does not indicate notability: notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whatever else happens, this should be moved to Mickey Finn (liqueur). We also have Mickey Finn (drugs), which was what I expected to read about under this title. The corporate spin on the legend of Mickey Finn is an interesting, but likely inaccurate, take; they seem to be talking about the same legend, though. Google News is not showing a large number of reliable sources talking specifically about this brand of liqueur[23] or schnapps [24]. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to what I said earlier, I agree that it'd be best to move the article to Mickey Finn (liqueur) as it is more appropriate, just didn't think of it at the time. www.mickeyfinn.ie/ explains how the company links in with the legend as contained in the article. It's flash driven so a direct link cannot be provided but it's in the history section once you go on the site. Also there is a plethora of news pieces related to the status GP team and their relationship to the brand which shows the importance of the group such as: http://www.statusgp.com/news/2010/05/08/mickey_finn_to_sponsor_robert_wickens The brand also gets a mention at the World Spirit Awards judgement: http://www.world-spirits-guide.com/topeintrag.php?typ=DES&eintrag=98215&betrieb=DES This shows that further to the points I've already raised, it has a wide reach in many fields and as such ought to be included, though I'll move it to Mickey Finn (liqueur) as it makes more sense. Thanks for the help in improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doylewiki (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a cut and paste copy of the original article, minus the AfD header:
Mickey Finn (liqueur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another article mentioning the brand: http://www.beverageworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37388:babco-europe-in-with-the-new&catid=64&Itemid=176 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doylewiki (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the concerted efforts by Doylewiki, there is still no evidence of any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: Doylewiki is a single purpose account, used only for adding information about drinks marketed by BABCO. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and JamesBWatson Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure promotion. Only claim to notability (second most in Ireland) is a self published source. Article content consists of its name (products do not inherit notability from the person whose name was used), properties (alchohol and fruit – like 10,000 other drinks), flavors (not encyclopedic), and Promotion & Sponsorship (doesn't even mention Wikipedia). Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 25 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roxanne K. Hyunah[edit]
- Roxanne K. Hyunah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable model. Doubt this girl is even a real person. Fails WP:BIO. MS (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting that the article says her real name is "Lee Hyunah" when other internet sources say she's "Hyunah Park" (with variants HyunAh and Hyun Ah). Searching on that name got me lots of social media - and some hits on a medical researcher, who might barely be notable.<gr> Don't SEE any notability for this lady. David V Houston (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweenies: Game Time[edit]
- Tweenies: Game Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to meet notability. No reliable VG source hits. No any other sources with any reception. Most results are stores and directory entries. — Hellknowz ▎talk 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Hellknowz ▎talk 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources to confirm notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found a review by BBC, but that isn't independent of the subject. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge whatever's verifiable to Tweenies, BBC Multimedia or Intelligent Games, per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 29 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of renaming is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anat Kamm[edit]
- Anat Kamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is subject to deletion due to WP:BLP1E. The subject is only being covered in the media as a result of one singular issue. Her life outside of this is non-notable and trivial. Coupled with the BLP issues I saw just skimming the articles makes it clear that delete is required by Wikipedia policy. Basket of Puppies 10:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. The affair that her name is tied to, in which her involvement is critical, is blatantly notable (just look at the ref list and read what it's about). There is no article on the affair other than the Anat Kamm article. While a case can be made to rename the article and shift its focus, there is no grounds for deletion. BLP1E itself states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Rami R 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Rami R. A Rename would yield a title like 'The Anat Kamm affair', which is unnecessary descriptional. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. A similar argument to Rami. There might be a weak argument regarding a lack of notability of Anat Kamm herself, but the content itself is mostly notable in any case. --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. I think consensus is rapidly building for a rename here. I had actually suggested this should happen in the past. Delete would certainly be innappropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — and rename. mono 23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. Marokwitz (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - newsworthy, of course, but also likely to have lasting impact. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. The issue touches very important issues of free press vs. government policies. It has grown to be associated with Anat Kam and Uri Blau - that is how people are looking for the updates on the situation. Needs to stay.Serge (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.218.7 (talk) [reply]
- Keep חובבשירה (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Richards1052 As main writer of the article & the person who has written very intensively about it in the media & is most aware of the significance of the issues involved, this is a critical issue within Israeli society bearing on freedom of speech, free press, and international law among other issues. There is a serious assault within Israeli society against human rights NGOs & whistleblowers, of which this battle is a part. I have no problem with renaming it something like "Anat Kamm-Uri Blau Affair" since it involved Haaretz reporter Uri Blau as well.Richard Silverstein (talk) 02:14, 29 May 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. Significant disagreement on whether sources are adequate. No prejudice to a speedy renomination following an attempt to rewrite the article from those sources. Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ocean Blue Software[edit]
- Ocean Blue Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable company, article by company representative. No significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Yet another run of the mill tech business promoting itself on Wikipedia. There's no reason that anyone outside the industry would have ever heard of them: a digital TV software supplier, specialising in the development of software solutions for the Digital TV, mobile entertainment, DVB and IPTV markets. Ocean Blue develops and sells the embedded software components needed for digital TV receivers; primarily integrated digital TVs (iDTVs) and set top boxes (STBs). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability. . . Wayne Riddock (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep google it has plenty of sources. Lets just clean up the article a bit so it has a neutral tone. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its notable enough to be listed in 62 places in a search of valid news sources. Click the link at the top of the AFD that says "Google news search". Dream Focus 00:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP - the sources suggested (by DreamFocus who seems to vote keep for literally anything) above seem to be press releases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason for the personal attack? I vote delete on somethings, just not those that have sources. Those aren't just press releases, but legitimate news outlets covering the announcement of this technology. [25] [26] Dream Focus 06:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is the first time that we have attempted to create a Wikipedia page so rather than just deleting us it would be great if you could give us some constructive help to improve the page so that it can be kept please, rather than just deleting it OceanBlue2010 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, so far all of the sources in Google news are press releases/product announcements, or references to their own white paper. Unless better sources can be found, I do not think this is notable. OceanBlue2010, since you asked for suggestions, if the article is deleted, you can ask to have it put in your userspace--there is no guarantee that that request will be honored, however. Please read WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:N for more information on relevant policies, but the bottom line is you are strongly discouraged from writing about a topic in which you have a vested interest. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cameron Scott. Press releases by a company do not assert notability of that company. SnottyWong talk 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not the most notable company, but I think it passes notability, if only by a tiny bit. While the article needs a rewrite to have a more neutral tone, the company is notable. - EdoDodo talk 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Please could you advise why it is ok for companies like Virgin Media to have over 100 links to press releases from their website? Is this because it is under 'notes' rather than 'references'?? OceanBlue2010 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found a few valid references (e.g., http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10323442-1.html) about Talking TV, their main product. It needs some serious rewriting though. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, wouldn't that serve to establish notability of the software rather than the company? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tricky question. My opinion as suggested in WP:PRODUCT is that together they deserve a joined article. It is not clear that it should focus on the product or the company thought. It is difficult to differentiate them at this stage. Pxtreme75 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then I would suggest the article be retooled to cover the company and include a short section on the product, and let's see if that passes notability requirements. Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 28 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 New Guinea earthquake[edit]
- 2010 New Guinea earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep had significant newS coverage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've encountered your !votes on other earthquake AfDs too. Have you read WP:NOTNEWS? I should AGF here, but I don't think you've read the 'enduring notability' part. Aditya Ex Machina 10:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I could not find much coverage of this quake aside from the usual breaking news. RapidR (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting coverage.--70.82.131.148 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete So insignificant, it was not even the biggest quake in New Guinea this year. There was a 6.5 in February. [27] --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insignificant ad notnews--DAI (Δ) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2010. Redirect seems acceptable to most delete !voters. The exact target can be changed if desired; I'm just going with the one suggested. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surya Yalamanchili[edit]
- Surya Yalamanchili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is nothing but an election piece - but unelected candidates are not inherently notable and Wikipedia should not be used to promote a candidate. I42 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seem to be numerous reference that can be used to establish notability and be used the verify the claims made by the article. I don't see how this is purely a promotional article as there are no opinions in the article. OlYellerTalktome 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single one of those search results is about the election. The article is about the election. Wikipedia is being used to raise the profile of a candidate and the article is an election piece. I42 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, you're seeing something that isn't there. Just because the news articles are only about the election doesn't matter. At best, this would qualify for WP:ONEEVENT but I don't think that applies here. Again, that's just my opinion. OlYellerTalktome 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to the constituency page, per WP:POLITICIAN. A thoroughly unnotable unelected candidate. Consensus, as expressed in WP:POLITICIAN is that unexceptional candidates do not get their own pages. Coverage of candidates is usually done through the very narrow prism of their candidacies and forms no basis for a proper biography. Thus information on candidacies should be on an election page, not a separate candidate article. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable election candidate who fails notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect He is on the ballot, but has never held office and does not seem to have significant independent coverage aside from the election itself. Instead of delete, the page could become a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2010. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 30 May 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:AGF, and probable subject existance failure. It should also be noted that John Hill is the original author of the article, though intervening edits preclude a G7 result. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheGoodTourist[edit]
- TheGoodTourist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
- Please help! I don't know how to remove this article. Ann-Britt Sternfeldt, the owner and manager of TheGoodTourist has just written today to ask me to remove this article, but I don't know how to do this. Can anyone else help, please? Here is a copy of the email she sent this morning. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- --- Original Message ---
- From: Ann-Britt Sternfeldt
- To: John Hill
- Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 2:05 AM
- Subject: About thegoodtourist
- Hi John,
- I hope you are well over there. Myself I a fine, the coffee tastes good (I have bought some dark rousted) and the chocolate cookies are fine, and the sun is shining outside.. But you get a bit of cold over there now, aren’t you? J The nights are a bit chilly...
- I wonder if you could delete the site for TheGoodTourist on Wikipiedia for me? I will close my domain for that and let the travel project have a nice funeral and that’s it. . . .
- Hugs Anna
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, why not? No evidence of notability. Their site is down, and if it means what I think it means, no more notability will ever emerge. East of Borschov (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete, per Borschov. I don't see a reason to wait seven days.—S Marshall T/C 18:59, 24 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chak 137[edit]
- Chak 137 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Possibly also a breach of WP:OR. Unverifiable - No mention found in any sources whatsoever. All that is found through Google are Wikipedia mirrors. Claritas (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I think Chak is a postal code in India not a prefix to a town. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chak" simply means "village", and many villages in Pakistani Punjab are known by numbers rather than names, so the article title is not in itself a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are no grounds to delete this speedily, but unless it can be verified, a merge into Chak (village) may be needed. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The worst possible outcome would be a merge to Chak (village). If this can be verified it should be kept, but if not it should be deleted, as we should not have unverifiable content whether it is in a separate article or in a merged article. Chak (village) is a pretty poor article about an undoubtably notable topic which needs improving by adding more content about the general concept, rather than to become a dumping ground for unverifiable content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced (odd as its supposidly famous), reads very OR and POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 24 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent[edit]
- Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a phrase, which makes no attempt to establish that the phrase is in common usage (it has about 100 Google hits), or to establish its notability. RolandR (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From a quick glance, it seems to have more than enough reliable sources. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 10:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75¡שיחת! 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75¡שיחת! 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious WP:COATRACK. As Tarc points out correctly below, an article which is just a list of uses of a phrase does not count as an article about the phrase. Clearly it would be WP:SYNTH to portray it as such. So the question becomes whether a list of uses is worth an article, and the answer is no because the notability of the phrase has not been established. Zerotalk 11:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does seem to be well sourced, but perhaps there is not enough here to warrent its own articel. It might be better to merge this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is dumb, in effect if not intent are just...words. You're taking a rather common way of phrasing or describing a matter and building it into something more than it ever was, i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS. To justify an article, there would need to be sources that discuss the notability of the phrase itself, not just a collection of quotes on where it was used. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I say Merge (into say Anit-semitism. Ther is clearly here a case for saying that the phrase is used, and as such the idea it expresses has a place in the appropriate articel. In a sence this is about a form of Anti-semitsm, not how its expressed by its critics.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because this article constitutes original research via synthesis. All it includes are examples of where this specific wording was used, so it is basically just a list of trivia. There is no evidence that any reliable sources have actually discussed the phrase itself, its origins, the manner of its use, etc. By doing so where they have not, we are engaging in synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Original research of a politically tendentious sort. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everyone else has said it, but I agree that it is synthesis, and there do not appear to be any sources discussing the phrases usage. Quantpole (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, POV, OR, etc., as stated above. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Tarc. Also, it is a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 25 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contagion (Oceano album)[edit]
- Contagion (Oceano album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a future album with no release date, no substantive article content and no indication of notability. Per WP:NALBUM, "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Redirect to band article was contested by article creator. I42 (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the nominator is correct, see also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Some online metal mags reported in March that the band entered the studio for pre-production, and there is not much of note since then. There is nothing wrong with waiting to create an album article after there is actually something to write about. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 25 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imperfect Harmonies[edit]
- Imperfect Harmonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Under wikipedia guideline this shouldn't be included. As this album does not have a release date nor a full track listing. The tracks are just rumours and the article even says "First track is confirmed to be completly done, but the title of the rest may change." (Under WP:CRYSTAL). Wikipedia guideline says, "For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. For those already working on the article, there is nothing wrong with patience. Just wait until there is something concrete to write about, in the encyclopedic sense. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yess, but it is an article about something real, so do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.181.64 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 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) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spamhole[edit]
- Spamhole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about now-defunct website, no sources given to demonstrate notability or back up any of the statements made in the article. Digging on Google finds only passing mentions in lists of similar resources: fails to meet WP:CORP. The Anome (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 29 May 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 List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Skut[edit]
- Piotr Skut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely minor character who doesn't need their own article, especially one with so much original research. PROD-tag was removed because JIP (talk · contribs) "[thinks] Piotr Skut deserves an article" = WP:ILIKEIT ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of the Adventures of Tintin characters - Despite some extensive good faith searches (I would have liked to be able to save this one!) I am unable to find anything constituting (a) significant, rather than trivial, coverage of this character, or (b) evidence of the character having independent notability, rather than merely notability in the context of the work he appears in. Double fail of WP:N. Merge and redirect back to List of the Adventures of Tintin characters, which it was apparently spun out from.- DustFormsWords (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, "I think Piotr Skut deserves an article" could just as easily be a lazy way of saying "I believe on any common sense view Piotr Skut should be considered notable" or "I believe the material here is large enough to make it impractical to keep in the existing article". Both potentially viable arguments. Assume good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Dustformswords, Skut is not a major character but there is a blank space in the character list where this info can go. Normally merging uncited material is a bad idea, but there's nothing problematic here. Someoneanother 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of the Adventures of Tintin characters. Piotr Skut is not an "extremely minor" character. He's not a main character by any means, but I think an "extremely minor" character would be one who appeared in the background of one panel - not one who had a major role in two albums. Probably not worth an article all to himself, but very much worth a paragraph or a few in a list article, and a redirect to there. The original research about his name should be removed and only his role in the two albums should be kept. JIP | Talk 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of the Adventures of Tintin characters. Edward321 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brent Huggins[edit]
- Brent Huggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person is unofficial head of a non-notable organisation. No credible references given to establish notability. Biker Biker (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy None of the "sources" is reliable so this fits the WP:BLPPROD guidance. Fæ (talk) 08:53, 24 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brunton compass[edit]
- Brunton compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No external sources. No claim made for notability. Reads like a product info sheet. Possible speedy candidate. Alternatively, merge into Brunton, Inc.. LK (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google Books search for "Brunton Pocket Transit" turns up a plethora of significant discussions of the device in reliable independent sources (one of which says, "The Brunton Pocket Transit, usually called simply 'Brunton,' has for many years been so essential to the field geologist that it is generally thought of as a symbol of the profession"). At least one journal article has been devoted to it. I'd say that notability is amply demonstrated per the WP:GNG. The article obviously needs some work, but information about the device's construction, history, and uses is out there in print sources, most of which are unavailable on the Web. Deor (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The compass is arguably more notable than the company that makes it. Needs to be rewritten but there are numerous sources.--Savonneux (talk) 00:21, 25 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mangalassery Neelakandan[edit]
- Mangalassery Neelakandan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about the character of a popular movie does not meet the criteria for notability. Sreejith K (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable independently. content can be merged to film's article.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:16, 26 May 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) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Late Night Morning Show[edit]
- The Late Night Morning Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability or existence whatsoever. WP:N, WP:V, WP:MADEUP, etc. Tim Song (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of the film, or any evidence that it meets WP:NFILM. Jujutacular T · C 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable now, no reason to think it will ever be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unnotable future films. Fails WP:N and WP:NFF -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. GregJackP (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability CrimsonBlue (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable film, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Digital news release via Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:37, 26 May 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. Closing no consensus rather than keep because of sourcing doubts. There's obviously no consensus for deletion, but little in-depth coverage of him individually. However, it seems there is significant consensus that his book is notable, and it has been suggested that this article be rewritten and retitled accordingly. That matter can be taken up on the article talk page. Shimeru (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Shapero[edit]
- Rich Shapero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15, which closed as overturn and relist. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer of previous AFD: The original AFD was unusual in that the debate focused on the right issue but participants didn't carefully check the various claims. Below I sum up the evidence and policy-based matters from that AFD, hopefully to help inform a better debate this time around and to focus the community's discussion.
Summary and analysis of evidence
- Sources in Google news
Google News has almost no significant coverage of the man himself (as a subject and individual). He is quoted a number of times as "a Venture Capitalist" giving a view on the market to the media, such as in this article, but the news article isn't about him or covering him, it just uses him as a source, a spokesperson, or quotes him. In such citations, the news media is unlikely to have discriminated in choosing him (many other people would probably have done just as well). Such mentions are indiscriminate and don't add evidence of notability (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N). Excluding the most obvious spokesmanship cuts the Google news hit count down to just 17 items of which some are coverage of a lawyer of the same name and most of the rest are "speaking as a venture capitalist" again.
In sum, Google News has a hit-count, but does not actually show any significant coverage of Rich Shapero himself. It contains two minor "transient" hits about the book launch.
- Google web search
Google web search's results speak for themselves too. There are almost no clear sources that are not related to his book "Wild Animus", and such mentions as the book does get are mostly on sites like Amazon and self-pub or non-reliable sources. Here too there are no clear signs of significant independent coverage focused on the man himself.
- Possible sources mentioned in the article, AFD and DRV
The sources cited in past debates and the article itself (during AFD/DRV) are: - his page on his employers website [28], brief coverage related to his book launch [29][30][31], and in student publications [32][33][34].
- Extra cites mentioned and added by User:Silver seren today
These are similar - a corporate press statement where he acted as company spokesperson [35], a very tangential mention in a legal dispute ("Shapero, a X% stockholder in company Y") [36], another spokesperson snip where the sole mention is that as a director of a (non-controversial) failed company, Shapero did not return the newspaper's phone call [37], a note that he is a board member of company Z [38], a brief article noting his book will be given away, with no coverage of the man himself [39], and one reliable source related to the event of his book launch [40].
- Conclusion
We don't have reliable sources of the kind needed. Most hits are mere mentions, or otherwise cannot speak to notability. Cites shown in the article include his employers page, student publications, recently bolstered by extra links of which all but one are "mere mentions" again. The only mainstream coverage that is useful evidence at AFD, is 2 brief mentions on a transient event, his book release.
Case for deletionThis is a BLP of a businessman, also the self-pub author of a book. There is little or no evidence of notability. Online hits for "Rich" or "Richard" Shapero include Google and Google News, but a closer examination shows that most of these are in the role of spokesman for his employer company and/or in connection with a single event, his book launch. There are also BLP problems.
- Summary of evidence
In summary the evidence from all sources posted on-wiki (article/AFD/DRV) are one employers' page, 3 student publications and a small number of mainstream "brief/transient coverage" mentions connected to his self-pub book launch and a university scare (that clearly fails WP:EVENT).
- Notability guideline for biographies
The article currently fails the notability guideline for people (best summed up in a footnote from that guideline - "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it").
- BLP issues
In addition to the problems of notability or evidence of significant coverage, there is also a WP:BLP issue. Articles - especially BLPs - require sufficient and appropriate quality sources to work from. BLPs in particular require high quality coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources for an article. None has been proposed. BLP is an overriding policy.
Multiple users also give as a rationale for "keep" that he was "notorious", a claim that tends to suggest he would be widely seen in a negative light and that is the basis of notability. Such articles must have sufficient high quality sources from reputable media to avoid "poorly sourced negative BLP" issues. But none have been presented.
- Other possible bases for notability
As well as Rich Shapero himself, I also considered 2 other possible claims or issues:
- His book release, or its promotion. This seems to be a self pub venture that got some coverage but insufficient evidence was posted to meet WP:EVENT or GNG, or to merit an article on it. (Wild animus book launch promotion controversy?)
- A very minor bomb scare when a box of books was mistaken as a possible bomb [41].
Neither seem to be a good source of notability for articles, whether on the man or the events.
(There is also no obvious viable merge or redirect option - discussed at DRV).
- Conclusion
There seems to be no basis in evidence so far of notability of the man, or his book, or his book's launch, or his book as a bestseller redirect. BLPs also default to delete in certain cases, of which serious sourcing problems are one.
Given existing poor evidence of notability, sourcing, and the additional BLP concerns taken into account, this article probably needs to be deleted for now (without prejudice to recreation if sourced in future). FT2 (Talk | email) 05:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've gone and added several more references. With those, I feel that he, rather easily, meets the notability guideline. SilverserenC 05:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Silver. I've included comment on these in the evidence below for completeness. However almost all are "mere mentions" and don't speak at all to notability. A BLP needs reliable sources (and not just college student newspapers!) that directly address the subject. We still lack evidence that Shapero himself has been the subject of significant coverage of a non-indiscriminate nature. For BLPs we usually want more than that: multiple high quality sources focusing on the subject. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same subject, same issues. Take a look at the cites. The first is a soundbite, and a brief tech press release on a new networking product, as spokesperson. It doesn't in any way speak of him or his notability. If he had been sick that day or fallen under a tram any other director could have given that press release and soundbite for the company and nobody would have minded. The second is exactly the same with the same issues. The third may or may not be useful, but all we have is a tiny mention that's otherwise not checked.
- Google hits and links need to be individually checked to ensure they do actually evidence notability. "[W]hether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it" (WP:BASIC, WP:N). FT2 (Talk | email) 07:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - due to nature of this AFD, I've moved this from elsewhere to keep the discussion views together, making it easy for participants to follow the debate. If this is felt to prejudice it in any way please feel free to reverse. No textual changes made. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I still think the coverage can be considered significant (and now we have even more coverage such as the San Jose Mercury News article and the article about his promotion in Australia), and thus fulfills our need for both verifiability and notability. I respect the opinion of FT2 but think he misuses WP:EVENT, there has never been a policy or guideline that has claimed that every single event in an article most be notable (but they must of course be verifiable), only the main subject (WP:NNC). I also don't see any BLP issue here, there is not even a single potentially negative statement in the article that is not very well sourced. And consider the common sense approach: People across the world (I got a CD in Sweden, some guy at the talk-page got the book in England and the US and Australia are also getting their share of promotion) are coming to wikipedia to look this guy up, so if we can provide a short but really well-sourced article on the guy, then why shouldn't we? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This gives significant coverage for a start, and this isn't far behind. Together with ten other mentions, many of which include quotes of his statements, I feel there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLP appears not to be an issue as all information is neutral and sourced, and WP:EVENT is largely bypassed by the large number of sources mentioning his former career as a venture capitalist. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the above editors commented - inaccurately - at the original AFD. A quick recap of the errors:
- @Pax:Vobiscum -
- We need significant (or substantial) coverage of the subject himself, to a high quality, to write a BLP.
- We have a San Jose Mercury News article, but it's primarily on a single event - his book release. Do we have a San Jose Mercury News article (or any other high quality source) on Rich Shapero himself? Not at the moment.
- Do we have any evidence yet that any mainstream reputable reliable source has taken notice of Rich Shapero and written about the man himself per WP:N or WP:BIO? No.
- Do we have AFD claims that any attention is based on "notoriety" or "negative" press? Yes, two of them [42][43].
- Do we have sufficient (or indeed any) high quality sources to write a high quality BLP-compliant biography? Not at the moment.
- Does "people might want to look it up" carry weight at AFD? Not usually.
- Notability of the person (a biographical article) and notability of the book release/promotion (a news event) are both possible approaches. WP:EVENT applies to the latter as to any event. Unfortunately and in the gentlest way, your post doesn't speak to the required actual evidence.
- Regarding the coverage (From WP:GNG): "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I plainly disagree that all this coverage shouldn't be considered significant. Regarding the BLP "issue": please indicate what material in the actual article is negative and not properly sourced. Further, the interest of the readers is the main reason why we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the notability guidelines, so my point still stands: we have an article, fully referenced, that people want to read. In what way is wikipedia improved by its deletion? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We need significant (or substantial) coverage of the subject himself, to a high quality, to write a BLP.
- @Pax:Vobiscum -
- @Alzarian16 -
- Same applies. The two sources you cite are indeed reliably published and high quality - but they are media coverage of the book release event, and only very tangentially coverage of Shapero as a person. If we had media articles of this level of sourcing on Rich Shapero himself, there wouldn't be a problem. If the book release and its promotion was evidenced as meeting WP:EVENT we could perhaps (subject to BLP issues) have an article on that instead. Again in the gentlest way, so far we have none of these evidenced whatsoever. If you can find any high quality evidence for either of these, then please post it below.
- @Alzarian16 -
- FT2 (Talk | email) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. You have a point regarding the second of the two sources I cited, However, I count over 400 words about the man himself in the first - his past life, a short biography, his achievements, the genesis of the book and his future plans are all covered. For me that's significant coverage, and by some margin too. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FT2 (Talk | email) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the sources do seem somewhat weak, but there is enough to build an article [44] seems to cover him in detail, [45] also has a nice context for him. [46] seems non-trivial. Yes, this is largely related to his book release, but the other mentions in other contexts (as a VC) are enough for me. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There don't seem to be any significant mentions or substantial coverage of him, other than in connection with the book release. There's no article on him as a VC or businessman. Nobody has "actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon the subject" (WP:N, WP:BIO, emphasis added). A general wave of the hand to say there are a few sources on the book release (which got a minor amount of attention) and "other mentions in a VC context" isn't enough for notability. There is no evidence of him being considered notable as a VC. The usual indiscriminate soundbites and spokesman bits for his a director of a company. This view tries to make a case based on a small number of indiscriminate mentions as a company spokesperson that do not and cannot actually evidence "the world taking attention" of the subject.
- Has anyone found good quality (non-student, non-book launch, non-spokesperson/non-indiscriminate, reputable) sources that focus on Shapero specifically and give him non-trivial attention, to show that Rich Shapero has had attention taken of him, himself, not just attention taken in the context of covering the event he was connected to? So far none has been suggested. It's a real concern.
- As an alternative for a subject that has been noticed almost entirely for a single event, we could try for an article on that event, Wild Animus book release controversy (WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO), but nobody seems to be arguing that the event is notable either. Extra sources on the book release event are nice, but they aren't core to an article on a living person, and it's the living person that needs notability shown. We need evidence Sheparo himself (not just the book event) was considered "worthy of notice" by being the focus of "non trivial works" (WP:N). FT2 (Talk | email) 16:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to say that no significant coverage has been found, when the fact is that this gives the man himself over 400 words of biographical information and quotes. How can you argue against that as significant coverage? (As an aside, I notice that you didn't attempt to last time I brought it up but still went on to make this comment.) Alzarian16 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative for a subject that has been noticed almost entirely for a single event, we could try for an article on that event, Wild Animus book release controversy (WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO), but nobody seems to be arguing that the event is notable either. Extra sources on the book release event are nice, but they aren't core to an article on a living person, and it's the living person that needs notability shown. We need evidence Sheparo himself (not just the book event) was considered "worthy of notice" by being the focus of "non trivial works" (WP:N). FT2 (Talk | email) 16:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Put simply, the focus for that source and the reason for its writing is not "Shapero is worth noticing, let's write about him. (And while writing about him let's comment on his book)". It's the other way round, "The book launch is worth noticing, let's write about it. (And while writing about it let's provide some background on the author)".
- In other words, we have information about him, but not evidence of his own notability. Having verifiable sources is not the same as notability. Being covered in relation to an event does not signify notability for the person (WP:BLP1E). Multiple sources are preferred to evidence notability (WP:N):
- This bit is crucial. We need to assess the evidence to see if it really shows the subject was felt worthy of attention by the independent source. Not just say "it's got X words in verifiable reliable sources". In the citations you're providing it's not the man that's been deemed worth the attention of an article, but the book launch, and that's a crucial difference. The man is covered only as part of (and due to) coverage of one event - the book launch. As an individual, there's no evidence he gained significant notice beyond his role as author of a book being launched.
- No "Rich Shapero" editorial seems to exist in mainstream media. Not even one source that directly shows the man being picked out as being worthy of attention in his own right beyond the one role or event of "author-promoter of a specific book".
- That's the issue. We have no evidence he is notable as a VC or businessman beyond that. None of the hits that have been suggested show such coverage in any other role. Most hits are extremely meagre. The "10 hits" cited include 3 from student newspapers. We don't yet have any coverage that meets policy or guidelines and demonstrates for notability of the man himself. That's the issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. He's covered. This reminds me of arguments that we shouldn't cover baseball players unless they have coverage outside of baseball. We've covered an author for who almost all coverage is due to his book and stuff related to that book. That's exactly what you'd expect of any author. You are raising the bar in an unrealistic way. I am appreciative of the fact you are doing so in the discussion rather than as a closer this time, but that doesn't mean the bar you are setting is the one we generally use. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But look carefully - "all coverage" so far is minimal - and what does exist, all relates to one specific event where the event (not the man) is the focus. Classic WP:BLP1E. Not like baseball players who have an entire ongoing career, and do get regular mainstream non-trivial coverage focused on the player themselves. False comparison. The asserted "coverage" speaking to his notability is virtually non-existent when checked - 3 student newspapers and a routine bunch of "<press release or soundbit for company X> says <spokesman>" type of unimportant indiscriminate mentions elsewhere. Show notability of the man, not just that he's discussed in relation to one event. We frequently allow that someone is notable for just a few mentions - but almost inevitably these are focused on the proposed subject directly. In this case none are. The minimal sources that exist that could evidence editorial discrimination, aren't focused on the man but on the event he's connected with and promoted. That's what got "noticed". Not the man. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When the questions asked of him in an interview are things like "where did you grow up" and "When did you become a storyteller?" and "If you had a book club, what would it be reading?" seems like questions about the person, not the book. There are plenty. At this point I guess we need to agree to disagree. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But look carefully - "all coverage" so far is minimal - and what does exist, all relates to one specific event where the event (not the man) is the focus. Classic WP:BLP1E. Not like baseball players who have an entire ongoing career, and do get regular mainstream non-trivial coverage focused on the player themselves. False comparison. The asserted "coverage" speaking to his notability is virtually non-existent when checked - 3 student newspapers and a routine bunch of "<press release or soundbit for company X> says <spokesman>" type of unimportant indiscriminate mentions elsewhere. Show notability of the man, not just that he's discussed in relation to one event. We frequently allow that someone is notable for just a few mentions - but almost inevitably these are focused on the proposed subject directly. In this case none are. The minimal sources that exist that could evidence editorial discrimination, aren't focused on the man but on the event he's connected with and promoted. That's what got "noticed". Not the man. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. He's covered. This reminds me of arguments that we shouldn't cover baseball players unless they have coverage outside of baseball. We've covered an author for who almost all coverage is due to his book and stuff related to that book. That's exactly what you'd expect of any author. You are raising the bar in an unrealistic way. I am appreciative of the fact you are doing so in the discussion rather than as a closer this time, but that doesn't mean the bar you are setting is the one we generally use. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the issue. We have no evidence he is notable as a VC or businessman beyond that. None of the hits that have been suggested show such coverage in any other role. Most hits are extremely meagre. The "10 hits" cited include 3 from student newspapers. We don't yet have any coverage that meets policy or guidelines and demonstrates for notability of the man himself. That's the issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - references given provide sufficient evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do take FT2's point that since all the references are in connection with his book, this may be a case of WP:BLP1E; however, writing a notable book is usually considered reason enough to have an article on the author, and in this case the book at least is obviously notable. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED - I would not agree that an author becomes notable because his book launch was. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO appear to agree - both state that a person is notable for one matter, usually has an article on that matter and a redirect from the BLP to it. Especially if sources on the BLP subject are poor or that is the sole source of any notice for him. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTINHERITED generally applies to being a member of a group or organization, which doesn't confer notability. However, it specifically states there that books, films, and music are different, as they are direct works of a person, so their notability does confer on the person that created them. SilverserenC 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED - I would not agree that an author becomes notable because his book launch was. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO appear to agree - both state that a person is notable for one matter, usually has an article on that matter and a redirect from the BLP to it. Especially if sources on the BLP subject are poor or that is the sole source of any notice for him. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very incorrect, sorry. It says in certain circumstances notability guidelines make exceptions. For books, the exception is authors who are "so historically significant" that any of their writings automatically become notable too - which doesn't apply. Generalizing this as "books confer notability on their authors" (paraphrase) is a very serious misreading. Go reread WP:NOTINHERITED and note that "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate [entity or topic] to parent [entity or topic]". FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree with the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED, but in cases like this one it seems to me that the author and the book are so closely interlinked that it's hard to say which is the 'notable' one - any article on the author would necessarily say a lot about the book, while any article on the book would necessarily cover the author and how he published it. I don't think it really matters which we go with - I'd be entirely happy renaming this article to Wild Animus and focusing it on the book, because that would make little difference in practice to its content. But I do think an article should be kept here. Robofish (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very incorrect, sorry. It says in certain circumstances notability guidelines make exceptions. For books, the exception is authors who are "so historically significant" that any of their writings automatically become notable too - which doesn't apply. Generalizing this as "books confer notability on their authors" (paraphrase) is a very serious misreading. Go reread WP:NOTINHERITED and note that "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate [entity or topic] to parent [entity or topic]". FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst it is clear that Wild Animus is notable enough for inclusion, I am not seeing what significance Mr Shapero has. It is perhaps telling that his article is dominated by a short section on his novel, which itself is notable in no small part because of the way it was promoted rather than because of his own importance as an author or other literary figure. I would have to concur that WP:BLP1E is applicable here. The absence of decent third-party sources and the more general unencyclopedic perception that I have of the article has me thinking that the best course would be to delete, or as an equal preference to redirect to an article on Wild Animus. AGK 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per FT2 and AGK above, I believe the article ought to be moved to Wild Animus and re-written to mention Shapero only as the author of the book. Sources 1 and 3-6 are passing mentions of Shapero, insufficient to establish his notability on a personal level, and should be removed. In my opinion, we do have the sources for an article, but one focused on the book and the controversy it generated. GlassCobra 01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually two kinds of source under consideration: those about Shapero (and I think they're mostly sourced to his company or his company's press-releases, so I don't see many of them as terribly reliable); and those about the book launch. The problem with those about the book launch is that they're essentially hatchet-jobs; they're erudite ways of saying "omg phail!" and I think it would be hard to distil those into a neutral, encyclopaedic article. I remain of the view that a mention of Shapero belongs in the bottom paragraph here, where he can be identified among the "other well-known self-published authors", but that the sources to write an article that's really about Shapero or really about Wild Animus do not presently exist.—S Marshall T/C 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at that list though. Crane ("prolific.. recognized by modern critics as one of the most innovative writers of his generation"), Cummings ("preeminent voice of 20th century poetry, as well as one of the most popular"), Chopra ("translated into 35 languages and sold more than 20 million copies").. that's a list of notable self-published authors who succeeded in a big way.
- Evidence suggests Shapero massively promoted a giveaway book which still didn't get many mainstream media mentions, it didn't go anywhere much, and then wasn't much heard of again to date. If there's a list of notable promotional campaigns then a mention there would be sensible. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references and sources now found for this article provides significant coverage. There is enough to meet WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references and sources exactly you considering to show notability of Shapero himself?
- GNG, especially for a WP:BIO, has wordings like these:
- "Multiple [substantial] sources are generally expected"
- "The evidence must show... that this was not a mere flash in the pan..."
- "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability... The barometer of notability is whether people... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works... that focus upon it" (the focus of most sources and the reason they are written, is agreed to be the book launch)
- "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event... the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person"
- "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event... generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident..."
- Sources: WP:N, WP:BIO. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by NuclearWarfare. Before I begin, I want to say that I was asked to take a look at this discussion by another party.
- Most of what can be found about sources has already been found, and it is now up to us to analyze whether or not they are enough to pass WP:SIGCOV (I use that shortcut deliberately instead of GNG, to remind us that what we are looking for is significant coverage of a person, not just bare mentions)
- The article is essentially split into two sections, an introduction on the man and then a section about the book. Let us analyze those one by one.
- The introduction mentions several things. The subject
- grew up in Los Angeles and attended UC Berkeley where he graduated in 1970 with a degree in English literature.
- is a partner at the Crosspoint
- is a board member at AristaSoft
- is a board member at New Edge Networks
- These are all cited facts. However, none of those individually would even make a stab at notability, especially as none of the companies he is a partner/board member for are bluelinked. We must then turn to the second part of the article, which discusses the novel he wrote, Wild Animus.
- The first criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) is "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]" The book, as well as perhaps the campaign, might meets that criterion. A number of non-trivial sources have commented on the book, but a great deal of the supposed reliable sources are college newspapers. I have looked in on student publications for a number of universities, and usually I can see that the fact-checking that the major papers have just aren't there for student ones. So we can mark the book/campaign as borderline notable at best.
- It seems that the book might be notable and the person is not. However, the article as it stands it about the person, and not the book or the promotional campaign. The article should be renamed and refocused to include more information about the book if it is kept at all. NW (Talk) 01:47, 1 June 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. NW (Talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Roche[edit]
- Pete Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are thin, and to my mind do not establish notability. In short "what makes this person worthy of having an article here"? I would change my mind if suitable references were available, but I don't see that they are. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The BBC News article is pretty good because is covers Pete Roche quite a lot, but that seems to be all. Find me more sources like this one and I might change to Keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "helped to organise" rallies is his claim to fame but that is not enough for WP. Since he as active in the 70s and 80s there may be info about him in dead tree format rather than on the interweb. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and added another citation. Johnfos (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going to be hard to expand, but Google Books/Web provides several mentions, I expect a little more material can be mined here, e.g., [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. Looking through searches for "Pete Roche" along with Greenpeace and/or SCRAM, there's evidence that his writings have been responded to, republished or anthologized, etc. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC) (minor fixes --Joe Decker (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Weak Delete rereading sources, I agree that there is less there than I originally believed. My bad. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NOTE (multiple, significant) Verbal chat 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Coverage does not appear to be significant.--PinkBull 18:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of Joe Decker's sources, the first 3 are him just acting as a spokesperson for e.g. Greenpeace; the 4th has a bio about him, but isn't independent; and the last 2 are articles by him. By my understanding of the notability guidelines, that isn't nearly enough. David V Houston (talk) 14:06, 24 May 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) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Omar Dyer[edit]
- Omar Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This unsuccessful political candidate and blogger is notable, and I made a mistake. Please see article history for the puffery I removed. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I made a mistake when I said I failed to find significant coverage of him or any evidence that he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Jujutacular T · C 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reopen per Jujutacular; I made a mistake when looking at WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 25 May 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) 02:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Europeanization of the Scriptures[edit]
- Europeanization of the Scriptures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not about what it purports to be. Issues regarding Bible translation belong in Bible version debate, whereas the title of this article claims a much wider scope. But much of what is said would not apply to translation in other European languages. StAnselm (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sources provided establishing notability of topic. The nature of the topic makes independent searches for notability problematic at best. Much or all of the article appears to be original research or at the very least unsourced. No clear rationale is provided for why this material can't be dealt with in existing Bible articles, making it an impermissible content fork. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wrong title, badly written, any nuggets of usefulness that might exist here could easily exist in some other article (such as the Bible Version Debate mentioned above). David V Houston (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; appears to be largely WP:SYNTH. *** Crotalus *** 17:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is covered better in other places in a more balanced way.--Savonneux (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per what's been said above. What's here belongs elsewhere, covered better, and the article title is a misnomer. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if not original research, it reads like that. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable references, breaches of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, and redundancy in that the topic is covered better elsewhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It looks to me like WP:OR. Two of the references cite sources with "Koran" (or similar) which suggest a WP:POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 30 May 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marina Leigh Duff[edit]
- Marina Leigh Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe this subject meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. The award won is not a national or state award, but one from a college. The book is self-published (via Lulu). All other references are to book-selling sites or web sites where people submit their own work. ... discospinster talk 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A poet with one self-published (Lulu) book and some honorable mentions at local contests doesn't seem like enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marina Leigh Duff is a new Los Angeles "Teacher-Poet" with a Master's degree in English / Creative Writing. There are not many known teacher-poets besides Taylor Mali on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is important to recognize her and other teacher-poets in this underrepresented sub-group of poets. Also, many popular and well-esteemed authors such as John Edgar Wideman are now publishing via Lulu. Lastly, universities produce many high quality literary journals and the awards given there should be respected, especially seeing that the judges are highly educated in their fields and can honor/recognize real talent. Ivynicole (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Ivynicole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your whole entry is just Special pleading. Could you make any arguments that are relevant within the scope of WP:PROF? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: I wrote the first entire book of poetry about teaching in Los Angeles public high schools. I do believe this subject meets the 2nd criteria for WP:AUTHOR: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Marina Duff (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of the coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. I'm afraid 'wrote the first entire book of poetry about teaching in Los Angeles public high schools' comes nowhere near meeting criteria 2 of WP:AUTHOR (unless it can also be shown writing about about teaching in Los Angeles public high schools has become a significant genre). Nuttah (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The publication venues are not themselves notable, I'm afraid Vartanza (talk) 22:12, 31 May 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. Sandstein 05:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Varhaug Idrettslag[edit]
- Varhaug Idrettslag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 14, which was to overturn and list at AFD. No opinion as far as deletion/retention is concerned. –MuZemike 02:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add the sources found at DRV. This sports club contains a football team that has played at their second tier and competed in the Norwegian cup. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. "Sources found" - I don't see any in the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The general rule of thumb (yes, I know it's not a guideline) is that any football club who has played in their national cup is generally notable. At the DRV, it was found that this club has played at least twice since 1980 (1982 and 1997). Searching for ""Varhaug IL" -wikipedia" brings up a few results, such as this story about their board, so it looks like there are sources to be found, although they'll take some rooting out. Bettia (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Rettetast (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:FOOTYN. While not a guideline, it is definitely relavent here. IMO, competing in the norwegian cup and having played in the second division are sufficient achievements to merrit keeping the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable enough to deserve an article. GiantSnowman 21:43, 24 May 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 deleted, WP:CSD#G11 Guy (Help!) 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book Money[edit]
- Book Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:CREATIVE. I can find no news sources and the article seems to have been written by the subject. OlYellerTalktome 02:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 25 May 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) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jules Falardeau[edit]
- Jules Falardeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable film-maker, fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant, independent reliable references. Only citation is a small role as a child actor. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Without sources, significance is unproven. JNW (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 May 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) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hollow (demo)[edit]
- Hollow (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With no significant coverage for this demo in reliable sources (or, at least, I could find no such coverage online), this article does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 23:12, 27 May 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 speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeStorm Power[edit]
- DeStorm Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and no establishment of notability jheiv (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (as it was already tagged), promotional article. Next time, wait until the speedy-delete process runs its course before nominating for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:43, 24 May 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. — Scientizzle 19:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson Gichuhi[edit]
- Robinson Gichuhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources, none found via Google or Google News. Largely unverifiable. Apparently non-notable. Huon (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Might be notable, but would need to be greatly condensed and rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I do not believe "might be notable" quite meets the bar set by WP:N. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very little coverage in reliable third party sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of independent sources having covered this individual. - Biruitorul Talk 19:31, 25 May 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sonja Benskin Mesher[edit]
- Sonja Benskin Mesher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems to be written in the spirit of self-promotion. There are a number of web hits on the topic, but no real third-party coverage. Deletion nomination based on lack of notability and third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Other than that, I agree with the nominator. Minimac (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no Wikipedia entry for self-promotion. I have not written many Wiipedia articles recently, and I have not got the encyclopedic standards right I am afraid. Maybe you can help me? I am struggling here. (RedDragonMachynlleth (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Comment moved from AfD talk page.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article looks reasonable to me - IF the artist is notable, which has yet to be established. Certainly, she's done several shows in several places, which is a good start. The article claims "awards from BAA and the Sunday Times, and since then more prizes" but doesn't say what those prizes were or when they were awarded or provide any references. If those prizes were significant, she'd be notable. If not, then not, I'd say. I note that there are no News hits for either the full name or without the middle name, which isn't good. David V Houston (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources which points to notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not to be brusque, but what sources? 3 of the 4 references appear to be written by or under the direction of the artist herself, the other is a blog. I see no coverage at all from reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Due to the lack of significant coverage in secondary sources.--PinkBull 20:24, 31 May 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) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Estate[edit]
- Paradise Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article should be deleted as it relies solely on primary information and has no secondary or third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to My Little Pony (TV series). --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 24 May 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. JForget 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Time Sam Roberts[edit]
- Prime Time Sam Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N and WP:V. The stuff verified on the page is about O&A and Sirius XM, not "Sam Roberts". NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 19:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unremarkable radio personality. There are a lot of references but none of the reliable ones mention the subject of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 24 May 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 all. Redirects may be created at editoral discretion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double Prices[edit]
- Double Prices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages because enough precedent has been set with the other AFDs for related pricing game articles that none of these are notable enough on their own to warrant individual articles. All pertinent information, sans most of the trivia, is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games.
- Coming or Going (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pick-a-Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Push Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Side by Side (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Squeeze Play (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Flip Flop (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Freeze Frame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sottolacqua (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None of these games have any resonance in the wider popular culture. Joal Beal (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Sottolacqua (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games - I've opposed the mass listing of these games before but after a slew of individual cases it now seems to be community consensus that there are simply no notable pricing games from The Price Is Right. Therefore delete article as failing WP:N due to community consensus as to notability, and leave a redirect. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect everything in the list per DustFormsWords' reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None of the games are notable, lacking significant coverage in any reliable, independent sources. I don't think most of these are good redirect names since most have the odd disambigs on them. Wouldn't oppose a delete then new redirect for those without the disambigs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 31 May 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 West Des Moines, Iowa. Anything of interest can be merged from the history if there is a source to go with it. Sandstein 05:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Village of Ponderosa[edit]
- Village of Ponderosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN place, with very little G News coverage CTJF83 chat 04:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Communities are generally deemed wiki worthy, even if they don't have a lot of coverage. OTOH, I'm not sure this IS a 'community'. The article itself says it's part of West Des Moines, and doesn't give any indication that it is actually an official governmental polity. David V Houston (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While communities are deemed notable, this appears to just be a housing development within West Des Moines and isn't notable in its own right based on the lack of third-party sources. It can be redirected to West Des Moines, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the lack of evidence that this its own community (rather than merely a subdivision) I'm changing my !vote to Delete (or redirect to West Des Moines), per TheCatalyst31
- Redirect to West Des Moines, Iowa. Zero independent sources means that this should not be a stand-alone article. Soome content can be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything sourced into West Des Moines, Iowa.--PinkBull 21:33, 31 May 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 Withdrawn. I'm convinced that it's notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrano de Bergerac (1972 film)[edit]
- Cyrano de Bergerac (1972 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well, it has a page on the Internet Movie Database, and the DVD is available at Amazon. It was shown on PBS's "Great Performances" in 1972 and got quite a lot of attention at the time, because that's when I saw it. It's not an overly famous production, but that's because it was a televsion adaptation of a stage production by American Conservatory Theater. You may never have heard of it, but those of us who were around and watched PBS in 1972 have. AlbertSM (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Just being a William Ball production alone should indicate notability. In fact this was a positively reviewed production that was aired nationally on PBS' Theater in America series. It in fact did receive significant coverage, like from the Los Angeles Times [55]. The Sacramento Bee considered this production the American Conservatory Theater's "creative apex." [56] Additionally, it starred Peter Donat and Marsha Mason.--Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Cyrano de Bergerac (1972 film)" is probably not the best title for this topic as it was a videotape production of a theatre production. But I don't know what to rename it. Perhaps "Cyrano de Bergerac (1972)"? Amazon sells it as "Cyrano de Bergerac (Broadway Theatre Archive) (1972).--Oakshade (talk) 16:30, 24 May 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. JIP | Talk 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bublay[edit]
- Bublay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oh my, do I really have to do this by AfD? This fails Wikipedia:MADEUP, Wikipedia:NOTNEO, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOTDIC, and does not belong on WP. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason, this did not get transcluded due to a Twinkle error. It has been sitting around for a few hours. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY Delete WP:NEO WP:HOAX WP:NOT etc.--Savonneux (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Per above (obvious). OlYellerTalktome 02:11, 24 May 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) 02:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meth capital of the world[edit]
- Meth capital of the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pointless, open ended, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and rename as "List of places referred to as the meth capital of the world". I guess this would be better as a WP:LIST, unless someone can find actual articles discussing the subject, i.e. the title and its significance. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pointless indeed, and worse, quite a few of the listed places actually aren't called the "meth capital of the world". I also don't see how a list would satisfy any of the purposes set out in WP:LIST. Huon (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article does underscore the fact that "Meth Capital of the World" is a cliche that is overused by legislators, law enforcement officials and the press [57] (a few years later, it's replaced by the equally cliche "former meth capital of the world", thanks, of course, to the efforts of legislators, law enforcement officials and the press). Although some of the sources don't match up to the claim (in which case, the items should be removed), the topic is notable [58] and [59]. Mandsford 00:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At one time I presumably agreed as, before I worked on it, this was just a redirect to Wasilla, Alaska and therefore likely just an anti-Palin joke. Still when working on it I found so many things are called "meth capital", and so much vandalism is encouraged by it, that it started seeming a bit pointless. Still maybe I can be convinced I'm wrong to give up on it--T. Anthony (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasilla accounts for more than 10% of the unique Google hits for "meth capital of the world" - showing that it's an entirely arbitrary moniker. A cursory look at that list of Google hits shows that apparently almost any place in the US (and Japan) has been so called. Huon (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial occurrence of an entirely subjective phrase. of references provided, 1 is a 404, 2 others are not reliable. The phrase, of course, is meaningless on its face. little or none of the production or sales within these regions is going outside the country, where other manufacturers surely exist. this is a US specific phrase meant to emphasize to the local communities that its happening there, not just elsewhere. while there is considerable evidence that california is in fact the primary area of production, the phrase and the references provided are all just trivial information. If someone wants to add a paragraph to an article on the drug indicating this phrases use, fine, but no article. For an article on this or the phrase "meth capital of the US", we would need more than single refs per locale, esp with a broad area like central california.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Meth capital per this: [60].Biophys (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Simply put, there are major legal and ethical issues with this type of declaration. A claim of something like the "Bratwurst Capital" or "Sunflower Capital" can easily be sourced and used as a positive thing. This is something that simply doesn't belong here at all, is completely subjective, may be the product of a moral panic, and is worst of all a slur against a community and giving them a reputation that will be poisonous if this gets into search engine results. We don't have a Cocaine capital of the world, a Heroin capital of the world, or LSD capital of the world article here; let's not create articles based on someone futzing with statistics to make a point in their locality. Nate • (chatter) 07:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, according to a Google search, Haight-Ashbury is or was the "LSD capital of the world." I wonder if there should be a redirect? *** Crotalus *** 17:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re. As follows from the Google search, "Meth capital" is a stable expression (thousands hits). It does not matter if the expression was "positive" (Sunflower) or "negative" (Meth, ethnic slur or whatever). It only matters if the subject is notable and well sourced.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The material can more appropriately be covered at methamphetamine, the article can have no value except as an attack article (albeit a fairly indirect one), and the list is unable to justify its own notability (unless there's been some sort of scholarly and critical analysis of the claim "X is the meth capital of the world" as distinct from merely meth use/production/purchase/supply rates). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there don't seem to be adequate third-party sources specifically discussing the subject (as opposed to just using or repeating the phrase). This Slate article comes close, but we really need more sourcing than that — there isn't enough here to justify a whole Wikipedia article.. *** Crotalus *** 17:20, 24 May 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 G4 UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watchindia.tv[edit]
- Watchindia.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable entertainment entity. A Google News search only turns up self-promotional press released on fee-based wire services: [61]. Joal Beal (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited and included a couple of more neutral resources. As long as there are also many other websites with little or less notability on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_television - I don't see a reason this one should be deleted. On the other hand, I'm entirely new to Wikipedia (but tried my best to stick to the standards and rules). Ilana yanevski (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add to title blacklist no new evidence of notability since the last AfD, repeatedly recreated with varying capitalisation/punctuation and and spammed all over the place. cab (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a serious evidence of notability (an extensive review from TVover.net, a IPTV related portal and blog, selected among CNet's top 100 blogs. The Wikipedia article I've written isn't any kind of recreation and I honestly can't see any reason why you would consider it as spam - I kept it as objective and non-partial as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilana yanevski (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CaliforniaAliBaba. I've tagged it as G4 with a link to the previous AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:46, 25 May 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. JForget 14:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guitar Pop[edit]
- Guitar Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing to support this as a real genre of music. The only citation is an external link to a promotional article of an artist that mentions the words "guitar pop" only in passing in the article's body. This appears to be just another way of saying "pop rock". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This would appear to be a rather imperfectly defined genre: Guitar Pop comprimises of catchy, light pop lyrics with the use of guitars. This would appear to encompass almost all of the guitar based pop music from 1951's Rocket 88 forward. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no evidence that this is a definable genre. The bands mentioned (without sources) would be first thought of as other genres, such as alternative rock. The term is sometimes used, but a term is not a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 25 May 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. JForget 14:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ergogenic aid[edit]
- Ergogenic aid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for User:Richard L. Peterson. Deletion rationale: Article is puffery, seems to me is to increase link count for Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. (see notice on the talk page) --Pgallert (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs verifiable sources to show notability, however I somewhat disagree with the puffery part. Optakeover(Talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Steroids are not the only substances used as ergogenics, so there is more to write about. A search for research on ergogenics [62] yielded a number of journal and book sources on this topic. If these sources can be accessed and used, I doubt it can fail WP:N and WP:OR and with proper writing, WP:PROMOTION will definitely not be a problem. Rather, we should be merging Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids with this article, considering that this article survives the AfD nomination and is expanded subsequently. Perhaps the original nominator should have assumed good faith before nominating. As what was said here, AfD should not act as a form of Wikipedia Cleanup Department. Optakeover(Talk) 11:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just what do you mean? The way you talk reminds me of User:Wikidudeman.Rich (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were you addressing your comment to me? Optakeover(Talk) 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I assume your comment was directed to me since I was referring to you in my vote reason. So, you want to know what I meant. Well, basically what I meant is what I mentioned, that the AfD shouldn't be indiscriminately used to stimulate clean up efforts for articles. Even if the writing was written in a puffery-manner, it doesnt mean that the subject in the article is non-notable or that the article should be deleted. Therefore I took it as a bad-faith nomination. If you feel that that is not true, well don't worry because such comments don't really matter in an AfD discussion much as an AfD discussion looks for consensus. Optakeover(Talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'keep--which I say very cautiously, recognizing the possibilities here for spam and misinformation. None the less, its an important topic and we ought to cover it. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - with expansion and good links to and from related articles like Performance-enhancing drugs this could be a real benefit to the encyclopedia.+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others...there's a viable article to be written here even if it seems primed to be a magnet for herbal-supplement spam. However, per Optakeover's search-results, seems like "ergogenic" is a noun (the chemicals are "ergogenics" not "ergogenic substances"), so ergogenic or ergogenics would be a more proper article=title. DMacks (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree to the name change but I think it will also be fitting if article merging, which I highly suggest is carried out in conjuction with this name change. Thus every main articles on ergogenics on Wikipedia can be under one article. Also if this article survives AfD then we can expand this article and make it a suitable for Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids to be merged to this article. Optakeover(Talk) 14:29, 28 May 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 Alexander Nunziati. Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Vampyr (band)[edit]
- Lord Vampyr (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
delete - NN band that fails WP:BAND. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Joal Beal (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge The first question to ask is: "is Alexander Nunziati, aka Lord Vampyr notable? If so, his new solo project is notable, especially if one can verify that the band released 4 albums. (The latest one is available on iTunes) It's clear that Nunziati's former band Theatres des Vampires is notable. Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another option is to merge and redirect this article as well as Lord Vampyr's Shadowsreign to the Alexander Nunziati article. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If Theatres des Vampires and Alexander Nunziati are both notable this is notable too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Blutsauger (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orMerge Alexander Nunziati is notable therefore this article should be mentioned in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeggia (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Alexander Nunziati. just cause he is notable doesn't mean everything he does is notable and this band shows no evidence of individual notability. duffbeerforme (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, with no "deletes" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Samek[edit]
- Tom Samek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2007. No reliable sources of information found (most news hits seem to be about an American miner who led a strike) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search for "Tom Sameck" and "prints" turned up a number of sources. Most are short mentions, but do indicate a recurrence of coverage in articles about art in Tasmania. Significantly, he is included in a 100 year survey of state artists by the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.[63] Other sources: [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] (and duplicate [75]) [76][77][78]. Ty 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found and added by Ty. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawal of AfD nomination I am satisfied with the references provided - good work - and so as there are no other "delete"s, I am closing this AfD as "Withdrawn" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 24 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Clarkson: Heaven and Hell[edit]
- Jeremy Clarkson: Heaven and Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Jeremy Clarkson DVD. All the rest of his DVDs do not have pages. The actual content of the article is unuseful and its hard to see how it could ever become so. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable, having received worldwide coverage in places such as Canada and Malaysia. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable DVD that fails WP:N. Not seeing any "significant coverage" for this DVD at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see notability established. News search for the full title get 4 hits. Yes, 1 is from Malayasia, and one is from Canada, but they're basically notes that the show exists, not a significant discussion of it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could show notability with a different search, but it hasn't been done yet. Searching "Jeremy Clarkson" "Heaven and Hell" gets 12 hits, which is better, but, again, most are passing/superficial. David V Houston (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:50, 31 May 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miracle of 86[edit]
- Miracle of 86 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested speedy (not by page creator). Fails WP:BAND. GregJackP (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - They toured with some big acts, and had a single on a soundtrack, and have a large web footprint, but as far as coverage goes, I'm not finding any really. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure about this one - but did some lead formatting and cleanup. Want to take a closer look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Band formed by notable musician Kevin Devine which had its albums reviewed in major dailies; for example the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [79]. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to notable musician Kevin Devine. not seeing enough for a page for this band. duffbeerforme (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robi Botos[edit]
- Robi Botos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear notable...working for others that are does not make him notable Moxy (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Winner of 2004 Montreux Jazz Festival piano competition. I've added references to the article. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO as a winner of a major music competition. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, agree with the previous two !voters, winning the Montreux Jazz Festival piano competition meets criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 15:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:26, 29 May 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_Devil_Wears_Prada_(band)#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patterns of a Horizon[edit]
- Patterns of a Horizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 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 Wayzata Public Schools. Merges may be undertaken at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wayzata Central Middle School[edit]
- Wayzata Central Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Central is no more notable than any other middle school, as far as I know, and thus is not notable. Zarel (talk⋅c) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Zarel (talk⋅c) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- Wayzata West Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect both pages to Wayzata Public Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect both schools as is usually done with middle schools. There's nothing about these two schools to justify an exception. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 30 May 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.