Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 11

< 10 February	12 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Concensus: Delete No improvements to article since AfD nomination got started. Admin is asked to execute the deletion Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fabiano[edit]

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

This is an article on a non-notable martial artist. The only claim to notability is that he was Taylor Lautner's first karate instructor and notability is not inherited. He meets none of the criteria of WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After searching on Google News, I can't find any evidence of notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear notable. Much of the article is copied from the subject's website without evidence of permission having been granted. Janggeom (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article gives no reason why subject is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to show subject meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Hara[edit]

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

Article was prodded and prod was removed with reason. This is a followup AfD discussion. 陣内 _Jinnai 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. Currently zero evidence of interest, and my CSE shows a stunning lack of hits. --Gwern (contribs) 16:19 2 February 2011 (GMT)
Delete or Merge. No context to have separate article. Perhaps merge with his book article. 5dsddddd (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect What is there to merge here? All I see is that the person is a mangaka and that he made the series/book which is already included in the series article (Does a article on the book exist?). Delete per above or redirect per my comment below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Kaiketsu Zorori. Normally, a person who creates a best selling book series would be expected to be notable (The Kaiketsu Zorori series has sold 23 million copies according to List of best-selling books, which includes a source for that number). Furthermore, as the series was apparently adapted into a feature-length film and two TV series totaling around 150 episodes, that further suggests that it is notable. It seems he should pass WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, as what is apparently a major franchise in Japan would be expected to have reviews and other coverage. However, given that no one seems to have found such coverage so far and the article really says nothing about him right now, redirecting to Kaiketsu Zorori might be appropriate. I don't understand why anyone would suggest this should be deleted instead of redirected, given that there is such an obvious redirect target. Calathan (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around since 2008 and still has nothing much to it, it looks like to me that this article was forgotton about for awhile and just now poked its head up. I will support a redirect to Kaiketsu Zorori as I do not see what harm that can do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reference and a bit more information. As people have said, this is a very big series in Japan. The author is often on book tours. The page could still do with a couple more references, but I think there is just enough there now to demonstrate notability and differentiate this page from the Kaiketu Zorori Series page. For what it is worth, the Japanese Wikipedia has separate pages for several of his series, but they have not all been translated into English yet. Francis Bond (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time for editors who read Japanese sources to analyze Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have asked Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) who is listed in Category:Translators ja-en to take a look at this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one, this one, and this one would help establish notability. This one could be supporting, but not one which helps with notability. This one would help with both Kaiketsu Zorori and Sgt. Frog. That should be more than enough to meet all inclusion criteria. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Nihonjoe. Noability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There appears to be enough here to establish notability. I'm withdrawing this AfD. Nihonjoe or someone else, please add those sources so they don't get lost.陣内 _Jinnai 18:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JustEase (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bala S. Manian[edit]

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

Lack of notability MartinezMD (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage like this in the New York Times is significant coverage. From looking at this and other sources in Google News I also do not think that the article overstates the subject's achievements. --JN 466 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also there is more when you look for "Bala Manian" rather than "Bala S. Manian"; e.g. these in Google Books. It is significant coverage. He is also an Oscar winner. --JN 466 22:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had significant coverage in indian media. Biocon director, ISB mentor are all high visibility roles, which makes the media do a human interest piece always. Besides the 1999 Science and Technical oscar for "pioneering efforts in the development of laser film recording technology." is enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. And the oscar win seems to have generated some coverage in 1999 in the US media like this NY Post article--Sodabottle (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Hindu. Easily passes WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a rewrite for style and additional citations. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage, The article may be written by someone known but the user does not know wikipedia article writing and referencing, The article needs a re-write, I am not nominating my self. But its worth keeping.--Its019 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unite Against Republicanism[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. The only actual mention of this organization in the references is here, and is trivial (a brief mention of what the group's bebo site said). VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It will take more than one sentence in a local paper to establish notability. Apart from that, it's an obvious soapbox. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest possible bar regarding articles on political parties and their youth sections. This organized political grouping constitutes a political party. I don't find the tone here to be soapboxing, nor am I put off by the localized nature of the organization. Useful information would be lost through deletion with no commensurate improvement netted by the encyclopedia project. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the information simply isn't reliable. There is nothing to back up these claims other than the group's own website. It's one thing to use a non-independent source to fill in a few gaps in uncontroversial factual information, but another thing to base an entire article on it. My view is that when the information is simply a repeat of the group's website, the information isn't that useful, but it does undermine Wikipedia's credibility as a source of impartial and reliable information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage of this organization in independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creative artists who have served time in prison[edit]

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

Flat-out WP:BLP violation. The vast majority of these names are not sourced. Even if they were, I don't think this would be a good idea for a list. Aside from the question of who counts as a 'creative artist', what's so significant about 'creative artists who have served time in prison' anyway? Is this really a notable topic? Should we be highlighting the fact that these people have spent time in prison? Should we have lists like this for every other profession? The only other one I know of is List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, which I don't like either, but at least that list is well-sourced. How on earth has this list survived since 2007 without sources? Robofish (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What a potential rocky dignitary torts minefield. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unsourced BLP and unclear scope. Travelbird (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MLA (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JN 466 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists like this used to be a staple on Wikipedia-- unsourced, indiscriminate (this is a textbook example) and uninformative. Our standards have improved over the years. Surprising that this "guess who's been in prison" thing lasted this long. If you're going to sling mud, make sure to tell us where you got the mud. Mandsford 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BLP issue is quite irrelevant for the numerous historical figures in this list, including Oscar Wilde and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose accounts of their own incarceration are major works of art. It is easy to find lists of this sort in sources and so the topic is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A major minefield for BLP violations. Also not notable enough to need a list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:BLP wouldn't bar recognition that certain notable people have been incarcerated at some point in their lives, so long as it's properly sourced and the some useful context is provided. I compare this to making a list of names and labeling it "List of Christians who cheated on their spouses". As noted, some very good people have been behind bars in the past, either a night in jail or an actual prison sentence, sometimes prisoners of conscience, sometimes people who made a mistake in their lives-- besides Wilde and Solzhenitsyn, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, John McClain, Tim Allen, Johnny Cash all come to mind. A serious effort-- and this one has been irresponsible and silly from day one-- would best be worked on in someone's userspace. As others have pointed out, this is a magnet for vandalism, so a casual approach is a bad idea. Mandsford 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Creative artist' is not clearly defined, and sources rarely use that term when describing these people spending time in jail. 'Prison' also has various meanings (it is not the same as 'jail' in the U.S., but apparently is used that way in some countries). This is a mess of WP:SYNTHESIS, in addition to the WP:BLP problems. First Light (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical, sourced figures only, but rename to remove 'creative': The 'creative' part is too subjective and largely irrational, the notion of an artist is already vague enough without arbitrary qualifiers. prat (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Major BLP problems and notability concerns. SnottyWong ^talk 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just rename it to List of famous entertainers who have served time in prison and its fine. This is a subject that gets plenty of news coverage. Anytime someone famous goes to jail, the news media covers it. Dream Focus 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm, every time a celebrity is caught cheating, or a politician cries, or someone publicly flubs song lyrics there is also plenty of news coverage. There's some guideline that explicitly points out that Wikipedia is not the news, although I can't think of the exact name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rather pointless list. In any specific instance, include the information in the biography. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giusy Di Martino[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Please note that anyone that registers can edit Anime News Network so it should not be considered a reliable source. J04n(talk page) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, wasn't able to find reliable sources providing substantial coverage, but if other folks can, that'd be swell. Note that the Anime and Manga Wikiproject has a really great list providing information about the reliability of related sources. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 20:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to clarify that Anime News Network's news stories and reviews are written by paid staff members who are overseen by professional editors, and the news stories and reviews there are certainly a reliable source. It is only the encyclopedia portion of Anime News Network that is editable by any registered user and would not qualify as a reliable source. I think only the encylopedia portion of the site has information on this person (and thus the coverage wouldn't be considered reliable), but I didn't want people to be confused by J04n's comment and think that the entire site was unreliable. Calathan (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try to be more precise in the future. J04n(talk page) 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSE hits. I didn't bother doing much cleanup because I don't know Italian and what's what they all seem to be. (I also agree with Calathan's correction. ANN is our single most important RS; so it's also important people - like Bread Ninja (talk · contribs) already has - not get any mistaken ideas.) --Gwern (contribs) 22:14 11 February 2011 (GMT)
Comment - It of course means nothing per guidelines, but it is indicative that while Giusy di Martino (note proper capitalization) is mentioned 12 times on it.wiki, all for her voice acting, she has no article there. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe's comment.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with nominator - based on the above {{findsources}} searches, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 18:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian International Airlines destinations[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this airline has any scheduled flights. None of those flights show up on the departure/arrival list on the webpage of Tbilisi airport. No independent sources either, and the airline webpage is not working - not that it would count as an independent source anyway. For the record, I think this airline exist as an Avia.ge plane can normally be seen on the tarmac of Tbilisi airport. But there is no indication that they actually started scheduled flights. Pantherskin (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually I would consider airline websites as reliable as they are almost always the only source of up-to-date info on schedules. Since this is not an issue of notability, I wouldn't see a problem with using them as a source.
I did get the website to work at http://www.avia.ge/en/timetable/3-timetable-from-tbilisi-tbs-airport, however it only shows flights from Tbilisi to Odessa and Kharkov and flights from Batumi to Kiev & Kharkov for a period in 2009 when the airline was still called EuroLine.
http://www.centreforaviation.com/profiles/airlines/georgian-international-airlines-4l lists a variety of destinations, however I have no idea whether said site is reliable and/or up-to-date.
If someone can vouch for www.centreforaviation.com or find other reliable sources then keep otherwise delete as non-verifiable. The little bit of info from avia.ge can be merged into the main article. Travelbird (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about centreforaviation. But actually checking the webpage of Odessa or Kharkiv airport ([1] and [2]) shows no such flights to Tbilisi. I am not sure what to do with the airline article itself either - I tagged it as speculation, as it is very unclear whether this airline exists, and if exists what kind of flights they offer, what their fleet is. Pantherskin (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://ch-aviation.ch/airlinepage.php?code1=GNN indicates that the info on centreforavioation is dated August 2010, however it is not fully clear whether all of these planned resumptions/start-ups actually ever took place. From what little can be found I looks like this airline may have never resumed flights under the new name. Travelbird (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the IATA membership database, and neither the ICAO GNN nor the IATA code 4L exist any longer. http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=8304 indicates that the airline ceased operations in 2010. The company as such probably still exists as the website avia.ge still works, but it is apparently no longer a functioning airline.

Therefore we should add the only verifiable info from [3] and [4] to the main article as former destinations and delete this page as based on the ch-aviation page it seems highly likely that these were only planned destinations that never actually were taken up as the airline ceased operations altogether. Travelbird (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: This also begs the question whether the Georgian International Airlines article shouldn't be moved to EuroLine as the company apparently never went through with the re-branding. If the airline ever does resume flights then both this and the Georgian International Airlines pages can be re-created Travelbird (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to where it came from and no redirect. It's a list of 20 destinations, nothing that requires more than a paragraph. Mandsford 00:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Airline is defunct, ergo it does not have any destinations. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of mixed race Britons[edit]

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

What exactly is the purpose of this list? If it's to list every mixed-race British person ever (or even only the notable ones), it seems like a bad idea, and more likely to produce edit wars than useful material. I think all these 'List of people by ethnicity' pages are pretty pointless, but this one is particularly problematic, because there's no objective definition of 'mixed race'. A person who one person considers 'mixed race' might be considered 'white' by another person, or 'Asian' or whatever. How much 'non-white' ancestry is required to be considered 'mixed'? How different do your parents' races have to be before you qualify? Are we going to have to bring back blood quantum laws to decide how to classify people? I just can't see any good coming out of this list. Robofish (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - encourages OR, empty list article, no sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to list the achievements and actual existance of mixed race peole like me - I know that racists wish to deny our existance but we are here and wish to be known. A mixed race person is defined as somebody with two parents of different races and somebody who self identifies as such. The article has been vandalised by as racist

Keep - do let let BNP members dectate wiki policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs)

The list has not been vandalised. Unsourced entries were removed because without sources, we had no idea whether the people listed self-identified as mixed race. Please don't insinuate that people are racists or BNP members based on unfounded allegations of vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm not a BNP member - I'm pretty leftwing actually. I know that there are plenty of people who consider themselves mixed-race, and I don't have a problem with describing them as such in their articles. I just think a list is likely to raise problems; as I said, I'm generally against all ethnicity-based lists, but I can see more potential problems with this one than any other. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This used to actually be a real list in the sense of having a reasonable number of people on it, but most of the entries were unsourced and moved to the talk page per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#British ethnicity lists. Now there are only six entries, five of whom are siblings of each other. Since nobody is apparently interested in sourcing the list, I don't see much point in keeping it around in this particular condition. Also, I agree with Robofish that there are not objective criteria for determining whether two different ethnicities are part of the same race or not and thus the term "mixed race" is subject to interpretation and potential edit wars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not a great fan of such lists. They inevitably lead to edit wars because they do not have a clear scope. What about people of mixed Russia/English ancestry? Do they qualify? What if my great-great-great-great-grandmother was one quarter Indian? Mixed race? Without a very clear standard what "mixed race" actually is, this list will neither ever be complete nor really serve any identifiable purpose. Travelbird (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless listcruft, high potential for OR and BLP violations. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pointless collection. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LIstcruft and a BLP sourcing nightmare in the making. Pointless. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete farcical that it only contains Five Star at the moment. A full list might have been mergeable elsewhere. List of Black Britons was turned into a redirect. MLA (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JN 466 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and may I suggest something be done with this OR construction (Multiracial_American) too. Bulldog123 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Meacham[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO in theory, by having played in 3 different notable bands, but sources are scarce indeed: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

The article contained a lot of unsourced (and I think unsourceable, at least by RS standards) information of a personal nature; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Justin_Meacham. JN 466 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the challenges here is that the alternate name given in the article, Justin Sane, is the same as Justin Sane but appears to refer to a different musician. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 20:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not independently notable - redirect him back to wherever he came from. Off2riorob (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; speedy keep #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KK (musician)[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Admitedly the subject's use of initials as a stagename and that the subject is not from an English speaking country made the search particularly difficult so I may have missed things. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you search under his actual name, you get quite a treasure trove. He's the subject of a bio by Einar Kárason (and collaborated with him on what may be his latest recording). According to the blog of a respected Icelandic publisher - Einar's main publisher - he's been nominated for a major prize twice, won the national music prize twice, and has 2 of his recordings on the national list of 100 best. I added some biographical details and references; searching on all the record titles that I didn't would presumably find additional usable refs. and a complete discography. (There's a Facebook page that I can't see.) In my judgement, the distinctions plus the heavy coverage suffice for notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per the sourcing and article improvement done by Yngvadottir, strong work. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Faina Petryakova. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Faina Petryakova Scientific Center for Judaica and Jewish Art[edit]

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

While the centre sounds interesting, I am unable to find reliable source coverage. I tried under the Ukrainian title given in uk.WP, too; [10], [11], [12]; nothing in news and books, and only 29 google hits on the web (and just the one, this Wikipedia page, for the English title). JN 466 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article on her I checked their Ukrainian web site [13]., and which is much fuller than the English one. It has a list of their publications, which I added . It also has her biography and a long list of her publications, and also reviews of them, which I think are sufficient information to make a sustainable article about her, and to qualify her for inclusion under WP:PROF. with a redirect from here. I am willing to do it. The Ukrainian Wikipedia does not seem to have one. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like an excellent idea. --JN 466 00:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Faina Petryakova, per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Faina Petryakova as this is primarily a WP:BIO. IZAK (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move - Appears to be more advertising than notable. Petryakova is notable though. I cannot agree that there is enough in here for a true autobiog, but it could easily be expanded I am sure... the section on "Faina Petryakova Museum in Lviv" would be fairly large for a start :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Faina Petryakova. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow move (you know what I mean) to article on her, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus whatsoever. If someone wants to merge the article then that is a matter for the talk page or some BOLDness. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat (programming language)[edit]

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

This programming language does not meet the general notability guideline. The only information I could find about this language is 1) the main website 2) a powerpoint made by the author, that the author posed on lambda-the-ultimate 3) an unpublished pdf from the author about Cat's type system and 4) an artima.com article written by the author. Additionally, the author is the one who added this article to Wikipedia... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stack-oriented programming language, as a member of that class of languages. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not used, and, frankly, anyone can make their own programming language if they know lex and yacc. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 00:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with this article? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joy (programming language). I have no basic objection to merging to Stack-oriented programming language, but a merge to Joy I think would make more sense. Joy is lacking some sources that are present in the Cat article, and Cat has a section comparing Joy and Cat. Unscintillating (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Actuary's Day[edit]

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

Memorial day of uncertain status. No Google hit but this may be due to the fact that the name of the day was translated from Armenian. From the article it isn't clear whether this is simply a promotional event by an organization or whether this day has any official status. Possibly someone who speaks Armenian can find sources stating whether this is notable or not. Travelbird (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would be absolutely surprised if this were a national holiday. Anyhow, I can find no coverage about this in the English language. The article itself mentions the day in the lede and then spends the rest of the article covering the Actuarial Society of Armenia. I suspect that this is a self-proclaimed day. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable vanity day.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham France[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was: "WP:N -- While there are a few stock photos and forum posts that mention this racer, I was unable (books/news/web) to find any reliable secondary sources providing coverage, nor arguably-reliable sources providing more than coverage in passing." The editor who declined the PROD did not address the concern in the edit summary or in the article. -- j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 17:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after repeated attempts, unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as the subject has never won any trophies, award nor does he seem to have participated in major events to such a degree that he would have sustained notability. Travelbird (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I also looked at this once, I asked the person who deprodded to please find sources, because I was not able to find anything worthwhile.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above {{findsources}} searches, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Apriatin[edit]

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

self-promotion, no indication of importance Fauust^ru 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTABILTIY. Self-promotion indeed. Nine thousand views on YouTube are not a sign of notability. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of real notability. Being a relative of someone notable is not sufficient. And if youtube is his claim to fame about then that doesn't bode well for the notability of his films either. Travelbird (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dima Bilan#2009 - 2010. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of the Absurd (short film)[edit]

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

Self-promotion. No indication of importance Fauust^ru 16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect now that the information is included in the Dima Bilan article. --Ezhuks (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect~~/Merge~~ to Dima Bilan#2009 - 2010 where this project is now mentioned and sourced. I see no evidence offered "per nom" that User:McSery is in any way involved with production, so excuse me if I doubt "self-promotion". However, the coverage for this Russian short film is lacking, so the second part of the nominator's statement has merit. A redirect/merge to ~~either the director Maxim Apriatin or~~ the songwriter/producer Dima Bilan would be the considersation. 10:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete Non-notable short film. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment sources have now been added to reflect this short having at least "some" coverage as a producer debut of Russian singer Dima Bilan. While not quite having the notability for a stand-alone article (few short films do), I believe a redirect to the Bilan article may be appropriate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. lifebaka++ 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Jesse Ramey[edit]

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

Page on a carver of fish decoys, written by a person with a close connection to the subject (apparently the great-grandson).
Partly WP:OR ('Information obtained...from personal conversations with Gary Miller"). The article states that "Ramey primarily carved decoys for himself and some friends. His output was very limited and therefore his pieces are considered fairly rare, even in highly used condition."
No Google hits that I can find and apart from two fleeting mentions in a book and unsubstantiated mentions in what seem to be auction catalogues, apparently no third-party coverage.
In essence, the fringe nature of the subject matter, plus the fact that he had so little output. plus WP:COI, plus WP:OR, plus WP:V tip it over the edge. Travelbird (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The fish decoys are not "fringe." The New York Times article about them shows this clearly. They are a respectable form of folk art, written about in books. exhibited in museums, and sold at art auctions. Ramey's work is apparently written up in books on fish lures by Kimball. Kimball's book in turn is covered by the New York Times, showing that it is an independent and reliable source. Other print sources, not available online, are listed in the article, and should be examined to determine the extent and nature of coverage of Ramey. If someone close to Ramey wrote the article, that is not a reason for deletion if Ramey's work has adequate attestations of notability, which seems to be the thing to discuss here. Exactly how extensive is the coverage of Ramey in the Kimball books? Are his museum exhibits significant? How many works of art someone produced is an irrelevant factor with respect to notability. The question of the existence of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, as well as museum exhibits, seems more relevant. Edison (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit concerned that you are taking the fact that Kimball is notable and that he mentioned Ramey to automatically conclude that the latter is notable also. This is however not necessarily the case.

I had a talk with the author about my concerns 10 days ago on the page's talk page and nothing much to establish notability has been added. At this point I think there probably just isn't enough.

If reliable third party sources that show that this person has received widespread, in-depth coverage are added I have no problem with the page. However if a person creates art primarily for himself (as stated in the article) then we really need substantial coverage to show notability. He could theoretically be notable for even just one work, but there are so many red flags going up here, that I cannot just assume notability on good faith alone. Travelbird (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not claim that notability is inherited from being in a book by a notable author. I just pointed out that the Kimball book is not some self-published and unnoted fanwank, which would not amount to a reliable source. Thus if it has significant coverage (I do not know the extent of the coverage) that would be one of the "multiple" such instances needed for notability. Have you actually read the coverage in Kimball, to support your claim it is only a "mention?" It is inappropriate to make such a claim in absence of actual knowledge. I agree the burden is on the article's supporters to demonstrate the satisfaction of notability. It seems likely they have access to the print references, so more input is desirable from them. Also, the notability guideline calls only for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," not the higher standard of "widespread, in-depth coverage" which you state above, which would probably require the deletion of a large fraction of the articles presently "Kept" in AFD. Edison (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response:You site the fact that the person created the pieces primarily for himself as part of your logic for lack of notability - however when these pieces were created they were not considered art. Fish decoys prior to the 1980s were primarily a method to feed one's family during the winters in New York and the Great Lake states. The most highly sought after pieces are from the Depression era or before.

The fact that a couple of pieces from a carver of that era were kept in good condition (rather than of being fished and stabbed with spears), is a testament to their artistic merit. Very few carvers prior to 1980 imagined carving for commercial usage (selling to other fishermen). Non-fishermen collectors simply didn't exist before the 1980s.

As I've responded, and shown in the article, his works are highly collectible to those who purchase fish decoys. They are shown in museums and have influenced several generations of carvers since his death. His pieces are in 3 separate books by the Kimballs (along with a bio in the first one). They are also in Steven Michaan's book titled American Fish Decoys (who provided many of the pieces for the American Museum of Folk Art's 1990 exhibit.) If those criteria are not enough to establish notability in the field - I'm not sure what would suffice for ANY carver of fish decoys. Based upon this argument - I would suggest that the bios of appx 75% of the Folk Artists on Wikipedia need to be reexamined in this light since not everyone would consider as notable the artists who carve wood birds, or crop art, or paint/sculpt outsider art or Gullah art, etc.... Birdfarmer (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this must be frustrating. However we on Wikipedia must insist that all information added here in verifiable. Even if I personally believe you that his work is great and that he influenced lots of other people - that is not enough. You need to demonstrate this by reliable third-party sources, e.g. books on fish decoys that talk extensively on him. If so little has been written on the subject then this is going to be hard and the article will most likely fail our verifiability standards.

Could you elaborate on how extensively he is covered in the book by Steven Michaan ? How much of the book is devoted to him. Is it a line, a paragraph, a chapter... ? And it would also be helpful if you could provide quotes from the book showing his notability.

Frustrating is hardly the word. I had a number of quotes in the article from Steven Michaan's book about how Jesse Ramey influenced Oscar Peterson and was definitely one (along with Oscar) of the founders of the Cadillac Style - but I was asked to remove them because I was told I had too many quotes and should use references instead. I'm afraid that might have contributed to the OR complaint (which I will re-examine). The majority of Fish Decoy books are little more than "pretty picture books". They contain short bios (usually less than 1/2 of a page) and a number of pictures to help collectors identify characteristics of a given carver when/if they come upon one in person. Michaan's book has 208 pages - 21 carvers (and a few unknowns). Only 4 carvers have more pictures than Jesse Ramey - and I was planning on writing articles on 3 of them. (Oscar W Peterson is already up. Was working on Hans Janner and Tom Schroeder). The Kimball books are similar - pictures with Bios although each book covers hundreds of carvers. The fact that Ramey is included in all 3 books is a bit unusual - only a few carvers got this distinction. I appreciate all of your help in trying to get this through my "thick head" of what you mean by notability and I agree that it is made more difficult by the few number of documented second and third party sources concerning fish decoys in general.- - I would suspect this is the case in almost all Folk Art genres. Thanks again for all of your help Birdfarmer (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the verifiability concerns, all information that you researched yourself,e .g. by interviews cannot be accepted as per our WP:OR policy. This is not an attack on your credibility, but as we have no way of verifying the identity and credentials of editors here on Wikipedia we cannot accept original research as a matter of principle. Travelbird (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that if the article is kept the O.R. should go. If a subject is notable on the basis of independent and reliable sources, then sometimes information from a subject's own website (not likely in this case) or from less independent sources (self-published material from the individual, information provided by an individual to Who's Who, someone's own biographical writeup ) has been added to flesh out the coverage. But such material does not contribute to notability: its use is governed by verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Edison (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obscure subject but references do exist. Obviously OR has to go. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is not whether references exits, but whether they show notability. Travelbird (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough for his work to be exhibited in specialist museums and to be presented in publications as examples from a notable artisan. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming that the reference books can be verified, there is sufficient coverage. ukexpat (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The nomination and the first deletion rationale raise questions relating to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Those commenting in favour of keeping the article fail to address these concerns, only counter-arguing with the argument that "it is an encyclopedic topic and we are voting on the topic, not the state of the article at any given time", for example, in User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s case. This would be perfectly acceptable if the concerns raised were relating to WP:NOT; unfortunately, they WP:AREN'T. The argument that "we are voting on the topic, and it is an encyclopedic topic" does not work unless you believe that encyclopedic nature is the only requirement for the inclusion of an article. Other "keep" comments include "it's a useful list" and "it's interesting", which are similarly invalid. It's worth noting that two further delete comments were also relatively useless. I would remind everybody to try and put some effort in here; address the comments and concerns of the "opposition", cite policy, and if policy doesn't cover it, a cogent and logical argument as to why this should be an exception. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian diaspora[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic seems to be a neologism constructed through synthesis of different sources that do not themselves describe this topic. "Norwegian diaspora" is not given in any of the sources and appear to be a neologism to refer to a conglomerate of several different groups that are not comparable and which no reliabel sources actually compare: Norwegians citizens living abroad and people in other countries who identify as having had Norwegian ancestors. For example there is a qualitative difference between the status of a Norwegian-American (who has e.g. a grandparent from Norway) and a Norwegian citizen who is living in America. This article confuses those and mixes the categories to arrive at an extremely inflated number of Norwegians in the world, which is at the same time Original Research. The article could possible be salvaged by removing numbers that are incomparable, e.g. the number of Norwegian citizens registered by the Norwegian embassy as living in the UK and the number of Americans who Identify as having Norwegian acnestors - and then moving the article to List of Norwegians outside of Norway or some such. As it is this article's title would require very good sources to suggest that there is a Norwegian diaspora community comparable to e.g. the Jewish or Irish diaspora. And it qould require completely different content if there turned out to be such a source. In short I think the easiest solution is to deleted the article as SYNTH and OR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasoning in the nomination. There is probably an article to be written on the topic of the Norwegian diaspora, but this isn't it. The grouping together of a bunch of statistics based on different definitions (such as the number of people registered at the Norwegian embassy in the UK and the number of people who says they are of Norwegian ancestry in the US census) under the heading "Number of ethnic Norwegians" is misleading and constitutes original research and synthesis. If this information were to be removed from the article then nothing would be left, so I feel it's best to delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Category:diasporas, it is an encyclopedic topic and we are voting on the topic, not the state of the article at any given time. If you don't like the name, because the article is now a list, this isn't the forum to address a name change. And, btw, that is why the census asks where your parents were born just to compile these exact statistics. I have never heard the argument before that presenting census data is original research, I guess we are now going to have to delete the 100,000 articles we created on US census designated areas and the data that was the basis for each article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, your argument about the US census is a good reason to keep Norwegian American, but not this article. The US census data is being listed alongside incomparable data for other countries. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are arguing the topic, not the content. Content arguments are made on the talk page. Is your argument that of all the ethnic dispersals, the Norwegians are some how exceptional, and don't deserve an article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emigration is not the same as diaspora - not all emigration creates a diaspora. Showing a reference that states that there is a Norwegian diaspora would be a good way to argue for notability. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is presenting census data of incomparable categories - and presenting them as giving information about diaspora - while none of the sources use the term diaspora. The policy: WP:RS clearly states that sources must directly treat the topic of the article - none of these mention a Norwegian diaspora. This is also the issue of notability - in order to show that the topic is notable at least a coupleof reliable sources that actually speak of a Norwegian diaspora would be required. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously the article claims the 'entire population of the Faroe Islands AND Iceland as Norwegian diaspora -because they apparently came mostly from Western Norway (uncited - and atleast 1000 years ago) - Both Iceland and the Faroe Islands constitute their own Ethnic and national groups and definitely do not consider themselves ethnic Norwegians. This really shows how ludicruous this list is in its definition of a "Norwegian diaspora".·Maunus·ƛ· 01:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Diaspora does not simplæy mean a population whose ancestors sometime migrated from somewhere - then the entire worlds population would be African diaspora - it means a group that maintain a connection to a homeland and its culture while living outside of it for generations - and generally implies the wish to return to that homeland. This is why Norwegian expats are not indicative of a diaspora - and neither are people who claim a partly Norwegian heritage. A norwegian diaspora would be a Norwegian community maintaining Norwegian traditions and ethnicity outside of Norway - it might exist - but it would require sources to deserve an article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless figures. This page clearly suffers from a common American inability to distinguish Xians from Americans with some little tiny bit of distant Xian ancestry. --Hegvald (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are arguing the topic, not the content. Content arguments are made on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was ready to hate this page, but it seems to me useful for its bluelinks into existing pages on the Norwegian communities in various countries. The numbers for this country or that may or may not be on the mark due to a flexible definition of what constitutes Norwegian extraction; perhaps a solution would be to delete the numbers altogether. The article does not attempt to write an article on a neologism, it is in actual practice a list of in-links — which is helpful, I think. Carrite (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that would require that the artcile be a list, and to be a list it would require criteria of what to include - neither of which it has now. And as I have detailed above the word "norwegian diaspora" does not cover the content that would be included in a list of the elements goven here. The useful list of bluelinks could be also done by redirecting to Norwegians or to a disambiguation page. Also still no sources for topic title... which would be required in any case. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there are whole websites devoted to Norwegian emigration. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

emigration != diaspora.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously, buy a dictionary or a thesaurus or something, you are hung up on the word. Words are for dictionaries, this is an encyclopedia. Look up encyclopedia in your dictionary. Encyclopedias are about the concept, not the word. We don't have separate articles on the Great War and World War I just because some reference works use one phrase and others use the second phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to compute: a diaspora is a specific kind of emigrational phenomenon not all migration is a diaspora. If you want an article about History of migrations from Norway I encourage you to write it, if you want an article about Norwegian diaspora you would first have to produce a source that says that there is such a thing. It is simple really. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very interesting, just the sort of thing wikipedia should have been about. No reason to delete when the inverse of this information is considered acceptable. Numbers of X nationality/ethnicity in Y external location is significantly more interesting than the majority of wikipedia articles. MLA (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did the research on many of these figures when they were included in the Norwegians page. They are simply completely incompatible. While a person would "lose" Norwegian ethnicity the day they switch their passport for a Danish one if they move to Denmark, if they move to the US, then all following generations for all time to come will be counted as Norwegian, no matter what nationality they may have. None of the figures match up, check my argument for that on Talk:Norwegians, the title thing that would be left when removing misleading statistics on that page would be the title, which as mentioned here, cannot be referenced by by anything and so the page would end up being completely blank, without a title. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not so much diaspora as just groupings of people who happen to live abroad. Not sure if we want "pages on the Norwegian communities in various countries". Geschichte (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been moved and redefined, and is it possible to continue this discussion or do we need a new one? Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^walk victor falk^talk 05:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a reasonable article subject and is reasonably-well verified. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "reasonably well" - not a single source has been presented that uses the word "Norwegian diaspora".·Maunus·ƛ· 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you noticed that the article's been renamed? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Louis Eloi Pernet[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person who established a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of published sources, except Wikipedia mirrors. —EncMstr (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 12:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources Johnclean184 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. lifebaka++ 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber[edit]

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

The first section have no sources at all. The second section cites 4 businesses not backed up by any sources at all. The section Private Life have no sources.

Under fortune the sentence "This valuation might be based on a mistake in name with a different company called Al Jaber Group in the UAE which has nothing to do with Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber." is speculative and has no sources.

The general tone of this page is very negative. A quick search on the Internet reveals several positive notes about this individuals, none of which are mentioned.

There are also links to sources that are "404"'s.

I feel this may be against the BIO guidelines and the the unreferenced nature of several points may very well harm the individual.

Looking at the edit history I also get the feeling that the authors may be biased.

Notices has been present for lack of citations/verification needed as well as Advertisement for some time and it appears that no one is interested in ensuring that this article has encyclopaedic value.

I therefore think this article should be deleted unless cleaned up. Sweboi (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber is a really notable businessman/investor [14], according to the Times of India he was the second richest Arab (in 2009). The article needs clean up and competent editing, not deletion. I've removed some of the unreferenced claims. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't dispute the fact that the person in the article may be notable. My issue here is that the content is biased. A quick google search will show that he has a number of successful business ventures; the article does however not reflect that. There are also speculations that are not substantiated. The article appears to be in breach of WP:BIO:NPOV and WP:BIO:V. Looking at the history it is clear that a small number of contributors have added a large number of negative information, none of which have added any of the numerous positive aspects that are freely available online. This in fact makes it biased. The article has been tagged as such for a substantial amount on time. I do agree that essentially the article should be cleaned up and that it would have value if that would have been done. However the question is: "How long do we let biographies of living persons remain on wikipedia before they are deleted when it is clear that no one has an interest in keeping it properly updated, cited and unbiased? This may harm individuals and it will also effectively make wikipedia a "gossip board" rather than an encyclopaedia. I still feel deletion is the best option since this article is effectively abandoned by authors willing to provide good unbiased content. Sweboi (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit here, and this is probably the greatest advantage of Wikipedia. However, this concept (open editing) brings a big risk of pushing incorrect or biased information, which is really dangerous, particularly in relation to living individuals. Currently, we have 3,500,000 articles. How many editors watch the pages? I'm sure the number is insufficient for professional maintenance of this project. I'm not sure whether this forum is the best venue for resolving such a complicated question. I can comment only on this particular article, and it is in my opinion notable enough for Wikipedia. The article may be biased, but it is fixable. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe so, but if no one is willing to do it then any individual in an entry may suffer including his/her business and that is not the aim of the Wikipedia project. Therefore I still think it should be removed or blanked until such a time as it is sorted. Regardless of the number of articles here we should address the ones we pick up on, we can't ignore one on the basis that there may be multiple others that are incorrect as well. This is about this particular article, once others are found they will have to be dealt with in the same manner. Sweboi (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notable individual on Forbes list of billionaires. Sourcing or NPOV issues in the article is not reason for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- seems to be cleaned, help to improve! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimOnly (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Rumantir[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for musicians since his albums are self published. PROD was contested by author. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does see any notability. Main author User:Vsergster seems to be a SPA as well. --bender235 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a promotional article for an unsigned aspiring artist who does not yet meet any of the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No WP:MUSIC or general notability criteria met. As it's about a musician, the article is eligible for A7 speedy deletion. - Vianello (Talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but thought there was a (mild) credible claim of significance in the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sean – iTunes Live: London Festival '08[edit]

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

Non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS as the article provides nothing other than a track listing. Info already contained at discog... so merge not appropriate. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: non-notable release. Yves (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability MLA (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JustEase (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haugaland Arbeiderblad[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews, 1 hit in gscholar. gbooks indicates mainly verifies its existence rather than indepth coverage. [15]. similar results for alternate name "Haugesunds Folkeblad". LibStar (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep systemic bias. Legitimate defunct newspaper of Norway. MLA (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it still requires sources. Gbooks normally turns up for historically significant. There are many defunct newspapers in the world, not all merit an article. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:recentism. The accepted wikipedia convention is "once notable,always notable". ^walk victor falk^talk 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [16] [17] As a local paper of the Norwegian Labour Party, the largest party at the time, it is notable. Consideration should be taken for the relative paucity of on-line sources in 1955. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frivolous to even mention Google News in the nomination. Kind of long-running newspaper. Definitely notable. Had several notable editors, as shown through WhatLinksHere. Probably has an entry in a 2010 book, but I haven't checked yet (don't own the book). Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable; Victor Falk shows some coverage which is reliable, and Geschichte's claim is plausible. Gbooks also shows a bit in Aschehougs konversasjons leksikon, although preview is not available, it seems that the newspaper has been covered in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia. I also have a problem with the nominator's rationale, as it is based entirely on finding little in three, online, modern, English-language sites, all from the same company and all which have severe limitations in their coverage. Information about such a subject is likely to be found at a real-live library. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author has acknowledged "case of mistaken identity". Favonian (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mitchell (government official)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, cannot substantiate notability even if it is implied (which, presently, it is not). - Vianello (Talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how an article on a former under secretary of homeland security is not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.104 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does this need to be deleted, and why were the sources I put taken down? As the above comment states, I believe an under secretary is important enough to have an article. Defense under secretaries have their own pages and there are some for under secretaries of other departments.WaffleStomp (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The references were removed because they did not mention the subject of the article. I cannot speak to other articles, but I assume they are supported by reliable sources that support notability of the individual. ttonyb (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable enough. Under secretary is definitely notable. Its not a question of notability but of if we have sources, if not, then delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.18 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's notable enough to keep up there. There are plenty articles here on wikipedia that we leave open for a month or two until some sources can be brought around for it. Deleting it for reasons of notability is out of the question. Under Secretary of a cabinet department is notable enough for sure. ~~JeffJonez (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.84.37 (talk) 20:08, February 11, 2011[reply]

Comment – Just saying something is notable does not make it so. Please indicate how this article meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. Just having a position in the American government is not one of the criteria for inclusion. As far as other articles, each article must stand on its own merits. It could be the other articles were left open; however, this one has been nominated for deletion because it is a non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance that fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, according to the administrator on your talk page, it meets the quality for notability. "Hello Ttonyb1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charles Mitchell (government official), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)"

With that said, since the sources I posted were invalid, I suppose it will have to be deleted.WaffleStomp (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suggest you read the quote in detail. No one stated that the individual is notable, only that the "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7." The key word here is assertion, it does not say "has provided support" or "is notable". In order to fail a CSD nomination an article has only to make an "assertion of importance or significance". The standard for an AfD is much higher. (i.e., it needs reliable sources). Just saying something is notable does not make it so. ttonyb (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have said, the article is notable without a doubt. Numerous other sub-cabinet level officials have articles, even ones in the department of agriculture. However, as the sources I put in the article were deleted because they apparently are not valid (they were straight from dhs.gov), I believe we should leave the article for a while if someone comes around with different sources. I have reformatted the article a bit for now and I took out some of the more non-provable information, like his friendship with Obama's staff, and his reasons for resigning. WaffleStomp (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me be as specific as possible, "real-world" notability has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability. In order for an article to survive, it has to establish Wikipedia based notability as defined in WP:N or WP:BIO using reliable, secondary sources. Articles that do not are typically deleted. Once again, being a government official is not one of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. The other sub-cabinet officials you mentioned have no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. In addition, please see WP:WAX for arguments to avoid in an AfD. As indicated above the reason the references you provided in the article were removed were simply that they did not support any of the text about the individual. You should have 7 days from the start of the AfD for provide reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has very serious verifiability issues. According to this, and the Department of Homeland Security website, there has NEVER BEEN a person named Charles Mitchell in the position of Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis. The first was in the position was Charles E. Allen until Jan. 2009. Then Bart Johnson was in an acting role until Caryn Wagner was appointed and confirmed to the post in late 2009. As for the other post claimed held I can not find proof of anyone of that name ever holding it. I strongly suspect this is a case of a) mistaken identity or b) a hoax. And c) it is a current BLP violation. Either way, it needs to be deleted. Ravendrop 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suppose it was a case of mistaken identity. I am all ok for deleting it. Go ahead. WaffleStomp (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Environment and intelligence. I am redirecting the page, and leave the merger to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IQ testing environmental variances[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork that represents the "environmentalist" perspective in the race and intelligence debate. However, there is no need for an article like this, because both environmentalist and genetic viewpoints can be and are discussed at length in the main article. In fact, most if not all views expressed in this article can be found in the main article, too. If there's any worthwhile material in this article that is not already covered in the main article, it can and should be copied there.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to Environment and intelligence, and/or one of the many other articles related to this subject, as suggested on the article talk page per WP:BEFORE. -Atmoz (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about environmental contributions to group differences, whereas Environment and intelligence does not touch that specific topic. If the article is to be merged with some other one, it should be Race and intelligence from which it was originally cut & pasted, as noted on the talk page. Moreover, there's no reason to retain the article as a redirect page as its title is not closely related to its contents and is in fact pretty much meaningless.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Merge to Environment and intelligence - there is no reason that article shouldn't cover the relation between environment and individual differences, indeed it seems logical that it would. Thereis material in the article that is well sourced and is not covered in either of the mentioned candidates for merger. Deletion is not a good idea.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following is a comprehensive list of arguments presented in the article. I have marked with an R those arguments that are already included in Race and intelligence:

1. Jencks & Phillips: B-W gap thought to be innate due to "labeling bias"

2. one author lists >100 possible non-genetic explanations of B-W gap [this is based on an unpublished article[18], and should therefore not be cited in Wikipedia]

3. Af-Am culture, caste effects, or stereotype threat could cause the gap R

4. schizophrenia has become more prevalent in second- and third-generation immigrants in Western Europe (???)

5. many say that race is a cultural category R

6. ancient and medieval Mediterraneans disparaged the intelligence of Northern Europeans

7. micronutrient deficiencies, diseases, and toxic materials may depress IQ scores in the developing world R

8. breastfeeding may cause B-W differences in IQ R

9. Flynn effect could have implications for B-W gap R

10. skin color correlations, self-reported ancestry, IQs of mixed race people, intervention and adoption studies, and blood groups as possible evidence against genetic B-W differences R

11. Fryer & Levitt: no racial IQ difference in infants

12. effect of childhood environment on IQ may have gone undetected because of deficient tests

As can be seen, most of these arguments are already discussed in Race and intelligence, and of the rest many are unallowable or irrelevant. Which, if any, of these remaining arguments do you think should be added to Environment and intelligence? Would Race and intelligence not be a more appropriate article? I suggest that relevant material be moved to R&I, and this article be deleted. Note that merging means that the old article becomes a redirect page -- what is the point in retaining a redirect page named IQ testing environmental variances which is a more or less meaningless expression?--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with relevant pages. ScienceApe 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even tell what this article is supposed to be about. Its title sounds similar to Environment and intelligence (supposed to be a duplicate maybe?) but its talk page says the content was copy/pasted from Race and intelligence. If it should be merged into another article, it should be race and intelligence since that is where the content came from. I don't feel a merge is reasonable though, since all of the article's worthwhile content is already in r&i and its title doesn't really mean anything.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 03:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a POV fork comprised entirely of content copied from another article, almost all of which is still in the article it was copied from (in substance, even if not word-for-word). This article serves no useful purpose on Wikipedia.Boothello (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or if there is no unique content in the article, delete. When we disagree on article content, we go to dispute resolution. We don't start creating new articles (aka POV forks) about the same content. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) – creation by a sock of a banned user. –MuZemike 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his debut at a fully professional level. E. Fokker (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oozinator[edit]

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

The article consists of nothing more than the technical specifications and the barely sourced controversy section. If anything, the important information can be retained at the Super Soaker page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's still pretty notable, I mean the commercial itself is freaking hilarious this does need to be kept.--Jack Cox (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough coverage here, although a merge to Super Soaker would not be inappropriate. Was that proposed and rejected, or are we here at AfD prematurely, again? Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's notable enough on its own and the page is so low traffic that a merge discussion would be fruitless.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please go read WP:NNC and internalize it. Notability only applies to standalone articles. Not to content, not to list elements, just to standalone articles. Notability is thus never a valid reason for deletion when a merger is plausible. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry. I thought that notability was one of the prime tenets for inclusion or exclusion on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly written and/or sourced article isn't a valid cause for deletion. There's plenty of sources in magazines, newspapers, TV stations and on popular websites, such as The Consumerist. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Center[edit]

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

The article is entirely based off of primary sources and written in a promotional manner. The notability of this organization is in question, too. A gnews search for "Foundation Center" charity results in only 2 hits, one of which is patently not related, the other a side mention of an unrelated library. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable secondary sources (e.g. magazines/newspapers) about this company that might explain why it is notable per WP:CORP. I expected there would be, because this looks like a rather large operation, but I have not found any. Also, it appears to be SPAM. Delete and rewrite later when secondary sources are available. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third-party sources, spammy. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the Nine Hells[edit]

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

The article is written with an in-universe perspective with almost no real-world perspective. The topic does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that show notability, the article relies on primary sources, it has no in-line references and it's mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the sources are out there to fix this one up properly, but I don't have them myself. This would be better merged into Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) than deleted outright, however. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as a "list of characters" from any other fictional franchise, the individual characters have received RS coverage--see Asmodeus for one example. Can certainly be cleaned up, but I heartily endorse BOZ's assertion that there are sources out there for this. Note that in-line citations are not required, nor are primary sources prohibited in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Asmodeus, the gamer myth, has no third party sourcing. These characters do not show any out-of-universe sourcing in their independent articles either. This whole mess is cruft lacking third party RS. [[UserSchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Delete Per nominator. Doing a quick search engine test, I found no evidence to suggest the existence of third-party sources independent of the subject or of significant non-trivial coverage to presume notability. The article itself is referenced exclusively with primary sources, completely lacking secondary sources, and, as pointed out by the nominator, the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. There is no indication that the topic itself has real-world notability or meets the general notability guideline. I also don't think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since the topic is trivial and an unneeded content fork of the article List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Jfgslo (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another WP:VAGUEWAVE !vote which makes several factual errors. In the first edition of AD&D, Devil and Demon lords were specifically not deities, in part due to the social/religious conservative backlash against D&D as a potential Satanist tool. Note that they first appeared not in Deities and Demigods but in the Monster Manual. So, now that we've established that your conclusion is inappropriate, what else is wrong with your !vote? Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE in what way? I do not know how I can be more specific. And your second point is irrelevant because all the references that you are citing are primary sources. There is still no evidence of notability and there is still no reason to keep the article as a list because all they are already in the article List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Arch-devils of Baator. Jfgslo (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per BOZ but trim a lot away. Systemic bias for people that edit Wikipedia to be DnD players (inc me) so see notability where none exists MLA (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IAR keep Not a lot of coverage in third-party reliable sources that I could find (I found some one-off mentions in about 10 books and one in a RS news article, but all passing mentions). That said, "d&d Asmodeus" pulls up over 100,000 hits, and other combinations of names from the article pulls up somewhat fewer hits (the first 50 all seems on-topic btw). That said, WP:GHITS clearly applies. But as I think removing this would make the encyclopedia weaker and there are plenty of RSes for this (just not substantial independent sources), I think IAR applies here. Plus I suspect there _is_ coverage (heck, I remember reading a book about the evils of D&D that discussed the hell mythology for a page or so some 20+ years ago). Hobit (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect/merge if a suitable parent article is found. There should not be a separate article if quick third-party sources cannot be found (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V). A topic should be developed from third party sources, not from crufty extend of primary sources hoping for someone to add third-party sources later on (which likely won't ever happen). Better delete now and allow to recreate with proper sources, than leaving this mess (WP:NOT#PLOT) forever hanging around. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per both our notability and verifiability requirements, if there are no third party sources discussing a topic then we should not have an article on it. I've done a bit of a search, and the best I could find outside of D&D's own publications was a passing mention on a gamer website. It is not enough to wave your hands airily going "There'll be sources out there somewhere"; the onus is on the defenders of such material to prove it. This is especially true when others have tried and failed to find the required sources. Reyk _YO! 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest trains in China[edit]

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

Do we need to make a list of every train with a number initialed "G", "C", or "D", considering the table will have been doubled by the end of this year? DS - fax 01:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's not encyclopedic, but i just can't find a proper one in WP:NOT to fit this. --DS - fax 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment There is also Fastest trains in India, should be discussed altogether I think. Python eggs (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and Fastest trains in India. "Fastest" is somewhat subjective, and the objective part of it is quite open to change. Also my experience in Chinese and Indian aircraft article editing says that these two articles are going to become "mine's bigger" edit-war targets sooner rather than later... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. The lines themselves are worth an article, the trains themselves and their average speeds are not. Perhaps the fastest speed could be appended to a list of the train lines. MLA (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn Middlecoat[edit]

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

This Pakistani fighter pilot doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A man who served his country well and died defending it, but like so many others who did the same doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Didn't do anything spectacularly out of the ordinary or notable, also didn't become an ace. Article is full of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure about this one just yet. I have found a few references, however admittedly there does not appear to be much out there in the way of reliable sources. That said a number of the Google Book results looked promising but I could only access them in snipet view, so it was difficult to say how much is actually in them (particularly the Bowman F-105 reference). The article claims the subject recieved a number of awards: the Sitara-e-Jurat a 3rd level award which he received twice, and the Sitara-i-Basalat, which is a non-operational award. Neither of these would confer notability under the WP:MILMOS/N. However, I am interested in seeing if other users can find any more sources before we decide what to do with this one. I share The Bushrangers concerns about how the article is written as well. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known air force pilot in Pakistani military history. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean you just delete the page. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then you need to prove it. Dig up some sources that show he is notable. Just saying so isn't going to save the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mar4d, if this guy is as well known in Pakistani military history as you say then there should be secondary sources which could be used as references. Can you provide any? Anotherclown (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to locate sources as soon as I have time, although please take in context that you can't expect to find everything in English - there may be something in Urdu on the web that I'll dig up. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some mention here, here and on the PAF Museum site; Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the second of those isn't a WP:RS, but the other two might be useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Article needs improvement and needs additional references, but subject of article may meet WP:GNG with improvement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Sitara-i-Basalat appears to be the highest non-operational award. That, especially in combination with two operational awards, would appear to make him notable enough to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric Pendulum[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:UPANDCOMING band; fail WP:BAND. Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. They "are releasing an album shortly". They "played at Deccan Rock Festival alongside international metal heavyweights", which is the sort of statement frequently made in articles about non-notable bands in an attempt to show notability by association, but it shows no such thing, as notability is not contagious. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standard band criterion is two full-length albums, which is not met. Nor are the others. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transitionist[edit]

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

Advertisement for a neologism, sourced to the place whence the term is trying to be spread. Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first AFD seems to have been for completely different and unrelated content. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yes, this article is about an art movement; the article deleted in 2005 was about the cosmic significance of transition, with particular attention to skateboarding. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orangemike...Modernist (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeperstar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. There's a claim of charting, but no references, and google didn't turn up any reliable sources. Further, this article has been deleted at least 4 times in the past. I strongly recommend salting. tedder (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability. Couldn't locate evidence of the claimed chart success. Such evidence would satisfy notability. MLA (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of this band. J04n(talk page) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra (band)[edit]

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

Band vanity article without sourcing. Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. Non notable band advertising themselves. MLA (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of this band. J04n(talk page) 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Saints F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable reserve football team. E. Fokker (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete teams from St Vincent & G outside the NLA Premier League seem unlikely to be notable. MLA (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors are welcome to boldly merge/redirect the content or raise a talk page discussion with the aim of achieving same. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Daines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unsuccessful candidate, he doesn't meet our notability guideline for politicians. No other convincing claim of notability is made. The article can be recreated if he is elected to high office in the future (with unreferenced fluff eliminated). Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete Although I was the suggester of the initial AFD. I feel like the article would be OK with a substantial rewrite. It also should be deleted as is. V. Joe (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's now running for the state's House seat in 2012, and since the state only has one seat he's a statewide candidate who's getting some coverage and will get more. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a candidate for office, even state-wide office, isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to United States House of Representatives election in Montana, 2012, per WP:POLITICIAN, as this is the office he's running for now. Ray^Talk 19:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike as copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gross[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. Orange Mike | Talk 00:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be lifted from Simon Gross' website here. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 18:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Turnbull (businessman)[edit]

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

No notability is established regarding the subject, who appears to be a regular businessman. Claims are made about the industry he was involved in, but no content establishes the notability of the man himself. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of why this person meets Wikipedia notability criteria. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Eventually notable, but without reliable sources, it can not be kept-- Rirunmot (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would ask that this article should be kept because:

1. Notability. There is clear evidence in the referenced book Perth Entrepreneurs: the Sandemans of Springfield to the importance of this person in the industry of bleachfields. May I suggest that you consult the book.

2. Industry importance. Linen manufacture and the enormous bleachfields needed for bleaching the linen were the second most important industries of Scotland at that time (see the book again). Duncanogi (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanogi (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 February 2011[reply]

I repeat that Turnbull was a leader in the then second-most important industry in Scotland as stated in the cited reference. Wikipedia includes hundreds of sportsmen, local politicians, and those involved in minor industries who have had far less impact on their COUNTRIES. Duncanogi (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that before you write more comments that you consult the authoritative work on the bleachfield and linen industry published 2008 by the Perth and Kinross Council ISBN 978-0-905452-52-4 Perth Entrepreneurs: the Sandemans of Springfield. Duncanogi (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a relative of the subject of the article, and a someone who is creating multiple articles about your family members regardless of whether they are notable or not, I don't think your comments can be considered objectively. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Simple Bob for your reasonable comments. However, I have studied the importance of the bleachfield industry and its importance to Scotland and would appreciate others to add to that in Wikipedia -- including adding information about such leaders in that industry.Duncanogi (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to sportspeople etc. is basically "Other things exist, so why shouldn't this one?" There is an established Wikipedia policy on this topic, Duncan. Click here --> WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS <-- Click here. It's getting tiring dealing with you, as you just don't seem to listen to explanations of how Wikipedia works. Don't worry though, I'll be right here to clean up your messes. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Simon-in-sagamihara, stop "dealing with me" -- I am someone who has put considerable time in loading information that I happen to know about into Wikipedia. Please as I suggest consult the book cited to see that this man was the major employer (with his partner) in Scotland's then second-most-important industry, an important bit of history -- many businessmen of the 20th century are identified copiously in Wikipedia for less nationally-important industries. I do not accept that a phrase such as your "I'll be right here to clean up your messes" is acceptable in Wikipedia.Duncanogi (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, you don't know Wikipedia's purpose, the criteria used for inclusion, the copyright issues involved with files, how to follow a deletion discussion and a partridge in a pear tree, and you refuse to listen to anyone who tries to help you. So basically I don't give a stuff how much time you put into Wikipedia, or how so put off you are, or how butthurt you're getting because experienced editors keep having to fix your mistakes. As long as you continue to cause problems, I'm going to be here to fix them. And if that means you start weeping and take your bat and ball and go home, then so be it. Look, I understand. You've been working for decades in a job where you got to tell the young'uns "jump" and their answer was always "How high, Mr Ogilvie?" You're used to having your own way and not having people second-guess you or point out your faults. That's fine. But you have to understand that the rest of the world doesn't work the same way. Just because you worked on IBM mainframes, that doesn't mean you're automatically God High Himself of the Internet. It doesn't mean you get to condescend to people who have the temerity to address your copyright-violating uploads, policy-violating edits and procedure-violating comments. Basically, it doesn't mean anything. Please, go spend a few days reading over the Wikipedia policies -- don't worry, they're safe, I didn't write them! -- and try to learn about how this place works, instead of assuming you already know the ins and outs of the place. Because you've got a talk page a mile long with copyright violations and deletion notices, so obviously something is wrong in the mind of Duncan. PS: As you've failed to notice, you don't write Keep before every comment you make on this page! Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable words: "messes, give a stuff, weeping, go home, jump, God, condescending, mind of who" . Unacceptable in public and particulary in Wikipedia. This is a warning to you Simon-in-sagamihara.Duncanogi (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors, I realise I have lost my cool and am guilty of feeding the trolls. I shall make no further attempt to engage and will focus on content instead. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - can we all calm down and take a deep breath! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest please Simon-in-sagamihara that no-one should disparagingly use the word "troll" of someone else — in Wikipedia or elsewhere. I do not like to be called a "troll" or dwarf.Duncanogi (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fascinating to me as a part of Perthshire history but no claim of notability. If Duncanogi (or others) could show why this person in particular was notable rather than basing notability on participation in an industry that the article authors believe to be notable then it could be keepable. MLA (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely comment that the industry was notable in Scotland -- the second-most-important industry. Wikipedia can usefully report past important industries such as match or nail making, steam engines, candle making, spinning machine development etc etc which were key in those days.Duncanogi (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely respond that this deletion discussion is about the article on Hector Turnbull and not the article on the industry. The industry being notable does not mean that each person in that industry is automatically notable. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs serious re-write and the minor details should be removed. More references required and more details required by the article writer. The claims above shows some sort of faciantion, but thats not enough. Consider re writing, re referencing and live link should be there or online book link etc. Other-wise consider *Delete.--Its019 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of additional references as requested. Quite difficult!!Duncanogi (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentI have seen reference links but you do not have too many live links. ITS Fine that you have book references but difficult to match. If you like links to journals or study work like pdf files then please add it.

Also divide the article in paragraphs and in between the lines referencing required.--Its019 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is room for this and I learned something Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultraman Leo. Anyone preferring to redirect it to the list can change it, but I'm just about to AFD the list. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Balbalu[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters, no hits on Google Books, Scholar, News. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultraman Leo as possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally Redirect to List of Ultraman Leo monsters except that article is unsourced and badly written. Alternatively Redirect to Ultraman Leo per Atmoz. MLA (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opium dream estate[edit]

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

The article appears to fail to address the WP:BAND guidelines due to a lack of potential sources to demonstrate the significant impact required or being published under a notable record label. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. 4 albums and no notability? Keep going for that dream guys. MLA (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Pass[edit]

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

Article constitutes nothing more than a list of miscellaneous information that would be better served being mentioned in their respective articles for each game involved. At this junction, however, the article is almost-entirely unsourced, and does absolutely nothing to establish stand-a-lone notability. The lead-in section is nothing more than an unsourced definition for a very vague term which could apply to any number of online systems where access was restricted - whereby Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wikitionary is. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Multiplayer online game - getting to be more and more common that a "pass" is required with new games, especially with Electronic Arts and THQ. The coverage is definitely out there (see Kotaku and Joystiq as examples), but it's unnecessary article spinout. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 'pass' is needed for access to lots of things, that one of them is online does not make it notably different from an office pass, a library pass, or a backwards pass. MLA (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iroha (band)[edit]

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

What little info is sourced is mostly coatracking. One member claims notability with a charted single on the "indie charts" but I can't tell which chart they mean. Overall, the members may have a shred of notability but the band itself doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Indie Chart' noted in the article and references is the 'original' Indie Chart or 'Independent Chart' that was compiled purely from sales of independent records/retailers. The meaning has been usurped over the years but there was only ever one, original 'Indie Chart'. This is discussed in the literature referenced. The fact that all three members were either in notable bands (Final, Rumblefish - all with their own Wiki entry) or are currently still play in a notable band (Jesu - again with their own Wiki entry) makes the band notable as followers of said bands would agree Acrmcr (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge then delete. The band contains members of other notable bands, but not individually-notable members. The fact that this band exists and that members of those other bands are involved merits a mention in the articles about those bands, but there appears to be no claim to notability at present for Iroha, and most of the content here is about the members' previous bands. Perhaps when the album comes out there will be enough coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Programming Language[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to establish this language's notability. Additionally, it has had the "notability" tag for almost a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article falls severely short of the general notability guideline of receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" by a long shot. I can't find a single non-trivial source in Google regarding this topic (here are the results of my search), meaning that we don't even have to establish unreliability of sources here, as there are no sources to establish the unreliability of! A Google Books search throws up nothing, and furthermore, the book reference cited by the article appears to be a print on demand publication (while this is not enough to establish unreliability in itself, the fact that the book doesn't show up in Google Books worries me). Put simply, this article is just not notable. Arctic Night 00:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unverified longevity claims[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because there has been no discussions of moving the original page on Longevity claims to here. 98% of the information on the "copy cat" page originated from Longevity claims. Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a disagreement on what to include in Longevity claims... [19]. I'm curious about where people stand on the question of that other 2%, which was added right before the spinoff. The article went from 103KB to 116KB, down to 23KB, then back up to 103KB, and there don't seem to be any hostile exchanges, so maybe this can become a moot point. Gee, I wish I'd bought some stock when it was priced at 23. Mandsford 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided My first reaction was that WP is for verified information so the article seems so wrong. On the other hand who is to say that the claims themselves are not notable? The article does present the information well for people who might be interested and it is well sourced and presented. Somehow I just can't bring myself to vote to keep. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personally, I don't think we should have this information at all; it seems to me a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. But in any case, these tables are all duplicated in Longevity claims, so even if we want to keep the information there's really no need for a separate article. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure, redirected article to 24-7 Spyz. ~~ GB fan ~~ 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Maitoza[edit]

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

Page is largely a copy of person's own website, changed 1st to 3rd person. Unable to find suitable citations to warrant article keep. Subject appears non-notable OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on cleaning this article up; I'm not yet sure how much of it will be left when I'm finished. I can't really tell if the subject meets notability guidelines, although his most-often-associated-with band 24-7 Spyz seems to. I should at least be able to remove the spam and wikify it; at worst it will end up being a short article or stub. I don't know anything about the artist or genre (or drummers, etc.) but that shouldn't matter a whole lot. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished rewriting the article to the best of my ability, it might be less of a deletion candidate now. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 24-7 Spyz, no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party sources whatsoever. Redirect as secondary option. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented that the article meets WP:GNG. A redirect to Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation may be suitable. lifebaka++ 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chang[edit]

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

Founder of a redlink company. I see no sign of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep. Per the official website of the company. Not totally sure of the coorporation's notability, but at teh very least, deserves further investigation, especially since it is located in non English-speaking country (China), which means that English speakers may be unfamiliar with it. For now, seems largish, especially since it is traded publically on the New York Stock Exchange.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete relies on a single referenceThisbites (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Need expansion with more reliable sources, but can be retain.Bill william compton (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep claim of notability. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation claims to be the largest semiconductor foundry in China and if so would be a notable company. Notability for this person is as founder of that seemingly notable company. MLA (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the article is written again and again. I can not find the history log but no significance of coverage anyways. only company websites.--Its019 (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable third-party coverage to justify an article. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backpackers (game)[edit]

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

Non notable game with no sources beyond the game's homepage. Nothing to indicate that any will ever be found. Also portions of this page seem to be on the creator's user page at User:Likemike1; both should be deleted. meshach (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's simply no coverage. None. Nada. Zilch. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per G11. Promotional page for a non-notable topic. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable game. I've made more notable games than this. No awards, no coverage, no wikipedia article. MLA (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suga Mama (tour band)[edit]

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

Delete on the basis that it fails WP:BLP. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How exactly does it "Fail WP:BLP"? Please explain. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article is VERY bare (that needs to be fixed), the band is very important to live performances by Knowles as they are the ones who are performing with her! Every performance (at least most) are performed 100% live, and that is done with the assistance of the Suga Mama's. I say keep, but a lot of work should be done within the article to make it notable. Theuhohreo (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not important at all. There isn't a single source to confirm any of the information and why is an article required to list people who make up the band. Why is a list of people in a band notable. There must be coverage about the band and its importance for it to be notable. Why can't this be merged to the tour page? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the backing band? Sure Beyonce is as notable an musician as there is in contemporary pop music but her backing band are only marginally more notable than her roadies or her makeup assistants. The backing band would need notability in their own right such as The Shadows for instance. MLA (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in St. Lucie County, Florida. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 611 (St. Lucie County, Florida)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. non-notable county highway that does not pass the WP:GNG or USRD notability guidelines as a standalone article. Admr Boltz 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a list can be created for St. Lucie County, I will say merge. ~~Otherwise delete.~~ Dough 48 72 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, delete if not. Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create List of county roads in St. Lucie County, Florida and Merge/Redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if possible, as said above. --P C B 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List has been created. Admr Boltz 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Saeki[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. The one source given merely announces the release of a DVD and mentions a couple of songs she sang. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely need more content and more images but she's an Anime heroine. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "Anime heroine"? She is not a fictional character. And even if she was, she still will have to pass WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that she played a heroine (or any major character) in any anime, if that is what Nipsonanomhmata is suggesting. Calathan (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 17:26 4 February 2011 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything here that passes WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ACTOR or WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't singing songs for Mahoraba and BECK allow her to pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion 10? Calathan (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont see how WP:ACTOR would apply here (Bikini model maybe?) As for notability WP:MUSICBIO falls under the notability umbrella and as Calathan pointed out this person does meet #10 but that is only one thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the Japanese wikipedia page doesn't have any indications of notability. MLA (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I agree that WP:MUSICBIOhas been met. Dream Focus 05:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KRU Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous nomination resulted in redirect to KRU; however, it ended up be recreated a number of months after it had be redirect. The label seems to have signed a number of other acts beyond the band KRU, but none have notability themselves, so as a non-notable label, I think deletion is more appropriate then a redirect now. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. no significant indepth coverage except first source of this search. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Just another music label. MLA (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 03:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbali Ntuli[edit]

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

Chairperson for political organizations is not inherently notable. Nothing else indicates they're notable. Shadowjams (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A youth organization chairman? Please. Not nearly enough by itself to be notable. Blueboy 96 13:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and unless I am very much mistaken, Speedy Keep as nominator seems to have not applied WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices". Blueboy96 also is mistaken about facts, but facts of the article rather than notability guidelines; Mbali is chair not of a youth organization, but of a youth party, a section of the Democratic Alliance (South Africa). Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:POLITICIAN who has already received widespread coverage. Greenman (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media coverage eg http://mg.co.za/article/2010-07-21-da-tries-to-shrug-off-elitist-cloak based on a simple google search. Heads of youth wings in RSA are more notable than in other countries as they have a much higher profile. MLA (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Sourcing may be poor, but delete arguments about the quality of the specialist sources do not seem sufficient to justify deletion. lifebaka++ 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita Shrestha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Message copied from my user talk page:
  * Hi Anthony, I wrote a page for Ayurvedic physician Dr "Sarita Shrestha" and it was speedy deleted. I had only started putting in the references and sources for notability and it was deleted a bot too quickly. I don't believe this falls into a case of promotion. I have started pages and edited for several world renowned Ayurvedic individuals, schools and organizations. I have added some sources and notability and request your reconsideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshgreene/Sarita_Shrestha Thanks 05:05, 4 February 2011 User:Joshgreene
- Message copied from Talk:Sarita Shrestha:
  Sarita Shrestha is regarded as one of the most important living figures in the field of Ayurvedic Medicine worldwide. She is the first Female Ayurvedic physician and the first Ayurvedic OB/GYN in that country. 22:28, 28 December 2010 User:Joshgreene
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Keep. The article cites multiple edited sources, including substantial newspaper or magazine coverage in California and Chicago; both of those articles are about this subject, or interview her. She appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and the article itself meets WP:BLP. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed by the a local newspaper on a specialist subject does not equal notability. I have been interviewed in a local newspaper, I am not notable. MLA (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By local newspaper are you referring to Metroactive? Does that mean you are glossing over the national magazines and colleges: Prevention Magazine, MSNBC Online, LA Yoga Magazine, Rocky Mountain Institute, Mount Madonna Institute and other mentioned.
  - Joshgreene (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me clear-up some confusion about sources. They seem to fall into 3 categories, none of which are acceptable WP:RS that demonstrate notability: (1) faculty pages like 7, 8, 10, and 11 – this type of material is nothing more than WP:EXISTENCE and has never counted toward notability, (2) web pages or local or narrow special-interest publications like 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 – these are generally not considered to be authoritative nor to show general notability, and (3) the MSNBC source 2, which turns out to be just a few talking points, like Shrestha "helps women discover their prakuti, or 'true nature,' so she can design an appropriate daily and seasonal dietetic and behavioral regimen". This article is simply a collection of such talking points from several dozen alternative-medicine healers. The substance of ref 4 is not clear, but on balance, I would say the references given in the article are way short of what we conventionally expect for a BLP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Xevious: Fardraut Saga. Mergers don't need to come here; they can be raised on the article talk page or just WP:BOLDly done. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xevious: Fardraut Densetsu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wrong button! This article is essentially a double for Xevious: Fardraut Saga; there's little point of it actually being here. Actually, I would prefer a merge, since the content here is not included in the original article. Despatche (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steps 1 and 3 of this AfD nomination were not completed properly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom --Teancum (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Robertson[edit]

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

WP:BIO - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A PROD was contested by adding some sources, but none of them show significant coverage. Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author has added two sources for Jennifer Ann Robertson winning the "UK Cherub Master Photographer of the Year" award. Both are from local news, and relate to a non-notable prize. I still find this coverage insignificant to establish notability. --Muhandes (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient claims of notability. The Cherub award does not appear to be notable. The rest of the resume is nice but not much success in her chosen field yet. MLA (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Puga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I find no available matches in GNews and only rare tangential matches in GBooks. The article has been flagged as unsourced since June 2009 but in practice has many years of unsourced-ness and there is no reason to expect improvement with reliable sources to demonstrate significant impact against the criteria of WP:AUTHOR in the near future. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough there to show notability...Modernist (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilson McCracken (artist)[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Only scant references to this individual to be found on the web: a description of his art on loan to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and several duplicated announcements of an exhibition of his art displayed at the art museum at which he worked. (See this one for example. None of the available references verify the details in this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real coverage. [20]. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of sources or claim to significance. JNW (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Music Circuit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion (by myself) in March 2008 and deleted. It was recreated this morning, and my initial inclination was to speedy delete it as a recreated article. However, the article as written does seem to assert notability a little better, although it remains without independent sources. I was hesitant to simply speedy delete it, so wanted to bring it here again. My opinion is still delete. (And this time, if it is deleted again, I am inclined to salt.) --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It's the UK's designated national promoter of Asian music which receives in excess of £500,000 annually from the UK taxpayer. Is that notable enough? I've added external references from the BBC, Royal Albert Hall, National Portrait Gallery and The Sun - do these suffice? --Grantbb (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. Getting a minor Royal to open your place is one thing, but getting Charles and Camilla shows a bit more importance. As to the refs, they're not going to get front page headlines, but if they're still Arts Council funded after 20 years they must be doing something worthwhile - and of note. I don't think the Arts Council hands out money without wanting to see some results. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Also, the indescribably unpleasant website means the online presence is pretty lacklustre, but this shouldn't affect their reputation in the RW. Grantbb (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; It's not great but I think this passes our notability threshold. Internet sources are limited but I think some real-world research might turn this into quite a nice article. bobrayner (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatina Salaheddine[edit]

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

Looks like a self promotion page of a minor personality. Nothing notable and encyclopedic about it. --GeneralPatton (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC) GeneralPatton (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, odd, some of the citations suggest there might be notabillity. But all are reprints in her own magazine, which is a bit peculiar and I think fails WP:RS as primary source (even though they shouldn't be). The one cite which isn't is just a list and proves nothing. Nothing in G-News or anything significant looking in google.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while I disagree with ThePaintedOne's interpretation of the reprinted secondary sources, with a single exception in Arabic which I can't read they all are local news pieces. I don't think any number of local mentions will suffice to establish notability if no one outside her immediate community has taken note. Huon (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. John Berchmans Puthuparambil OFM CAP[edit]

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

Apart from being very holy, I can't determine any valid claims to notability (PROD removed). ninety:one 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would say, based on the article. If the article is correct, he was a good guy and effective in his jobs. But that seems to be it. He held a post called "First Indian Capuchin Provincial". Can't tell exactly what that is, but it seems like just a job - its not like being a bishop or anything close to that, as near as I can tell. And that would seem to be the strongest point for any notability he might have. Still. He's been dead for twenty-five years, and somebody thought it worthwhile to write about him. He may have had more impact than is clear from the article. So I feel a little unsure about this. But as it stands, I would have to say, not notable. Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't feel strongly about it, being the first Indian Capuchin Provincial in combination with what else is said about him passes the notability test within the context of someone who has chosen the religious life. As for what a Provincial is, see Provincial superior AJHingston (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Well, if a person's main claim to notability is "Held position X", then Position X would usually have be something like Archbishop, General, CEO, etc. for the article to even stand a chance, I would think. A mere Bishop, Colonel, Executive VP etc. would not qualify (unless they were otherwise notable, of course). I'm not getting the sense that the good father was really at this level. I don't want to be pedantic about this. If the article was better - shorter and more to the point - maybe we could see this better. But it's not. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a complete lack of reliable secondary sources, making him fail the GNG and WP:BIO. No matter what the importance of his office is, if no one but us cares to write about him, neither should we. Huon (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete office is not notable. MLA (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Faje[edit]

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

Not notable. All the sources on Google I was able to find were original research or unreliable. Only 15,700 google hits. Perseus8235 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per multiple appearances on late-night talk shows, but weak because I'm not seeing much in the way of WP:RS for anything besides appearances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, no citations at all, but plenty of ghits some of which I think might qualify as a 'cult following' per WP:ENT #2. Marginal but I'd give it benefit of the doubt and hope someone does a refimprove.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>*Delete He was a former contestant on "America's Got Talent". These people usually get a short bursts of coverage and then the world moves on to the next person. I can't find anything to suggest that this person will have the sustained coverage needed to show long-term notability. Travelbird (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found sources which confirm his existence, but nothing giving significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If it is desired to merge or redirect the article, that can be done with a discussion on the talk page (or an implementation of WP:BOLD). Stifle (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avenues: The World School[edit]

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

Article is about a school and/or a group of schools that does not exist yet, and which may not exist for a long time. As such, the subject cannot have accumulated any notability: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Any press reports are about the project and not about the school itself : WP:RS. Will not serve grade 12 until 2016. Kudpung (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is about a school system that does not yet exist. It is also written in an overly promotional tone. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs rewrite from the article lead Avenues: The World School is a worldwide system of independent pre-K-12 schools, so the page is about the system, not a particular school. As such citations about the project as a whole are perfectly valid and there are two from Reuters who are clearly a reliable source. It needs a major re-write to change the tone and take out the promotional slant, but I think notabillity is established so it shouldn't be deleted.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we ignore the sources which are not independent, we have a few news reports about the announcement that the project is planned, all published on the same day, and having all the character of write-ups of a press release. There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. In addition, the article is totally promotional. It has already been speedy-deleted once as promotional, and has been re-created either word for word the same or very nearly so. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, on the one hand deletion is not cleanup and if the subject is notable (which it may be) the article could be trimmed to an acceptable stub. OTOH, if the only person adding stuff to this looks to be COI and has ignored a speedy to put the promo material back in again, its might not be worth the effort.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability verified by these independent news sources [21] [22] [23] [24], but a clean-up would greatly help to improve the article. Utterman (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that we know what is in the cited 'sources' above:

Chelsea Gay City:The World School put forth their plan for fall 2012. That’s the preordained time by which 259 Tenth Avenue (a former warehouse which dates back to 1928 and bears the mark of designer Cass Gilbert) will make its debut as the Avenues’ flagship campus.

Reuters: Avenues: The World School," will open in a soon-to-be renovated warehouse in New York City's Chelsea neighborhood in fall 2012,

Philadelphia Business Journal:The company plans to open its flagship campus in fall 2012 in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood

All reporting almost verbatim the same info, probably as a result of a press release. Ans all sheer speculation about something tha hasn't happened yet and is not scheduled to happen until 'Fall' (Autumn) 2012) How can something that hasn't happened yet be notable? Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:CRYSTAL does not say that all things in the future are non-notable. Rather it says there are limits. In this case, the article is about a project, and the project would appear to be under way. The fact that a particular part of the project doesn't 'go live' until fall 2012 doesn't mean the project itself has no notability. To quote specificaly from policy If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. which by implication means that if preparation for an event has begun this does not bar entry and even before that it may be notable provided reliable sources can be supplied. Preparation would appear to be underway here, and reliable sources have been supplied. Incidentaly, while I have voted keep I could be persueded otherwise, but I don't think the issue is as black and white as you are suggesting above.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This ref http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110131/FREE/110129855# (which is numbers 7 and 8 on the article as the inline cites are a mess) states that planning work began in 2009, the headquarters building is opening in March 2011 and first admissions are being accepted from fall 2011, so I think invkoing WP:CRYSTAL is inappropriate here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If commentators want to keep it, based on a project, then it is not a school and it should be moved. As a school however, it cannot possibly be notable - it doesn't exist ad will not for nearly two years. It will still not meet notability for schools until 2016 when it starts offering Grade 12 classes.Kudpung (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not listed as a school? The first line of the article says Avenues: The World School is a worldwide system of independent pre-K-12 schools, so the project as a whole is called Avenues: The World School, it's not an individual school called 'Avenues'.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chris Whittle, as the latest in his series of educational enterprises. Based on the coverage this has received and the participants, it's notable in spite of not existing yet, but there isn't much to say in a stand-alone article. If the project comes to fruition, it can be split off as a stand-alone article in the future. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HS. The policy is that high schools are almost always notable. In this case the school is pre-school to high school. This is a school created by notable people who had articles before the school was even created. And the founders played important roles in very notable schools. In addition the building itself is notable. I wandered in here after seeing the full page ad in The New Yorker which in itself should have flagged it as notable. Yes, the article may currently be promotional but that can be fixed. There's very few high schools that bear the pedigree this one has.Americasroof (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The school does not exist yet. As a non functioning project that exists only on an architect's blueprint and a hole in the ground it is not yet a place of learning, and as such cannot possibly have accumulated any notabilty for its academic standards - it doesn't have any, and has no pedigree. A building out of steel, bricks, and concrete does not make a school. Schools are made, and their reputatioins are established by the students, the teachers, head teachers, and governors - not the New Yorker. It won't even be a high school until 2016, so unless it does something really extraordinary before then, it will not meet Wikipedia criteria for schools.Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a single physical school building (or hole in the ground). This page is about the organisation and their project to open a series of schools. So WP:HS doesn't apply and exclusions to it equally don't apply. The headquarters building is opening next month (March 2011), so it's gone considerably beyond a blueprint and I fail to see where in the sources you can back up 'non functioning project' as all the evidence suggests its moving along to plan. Presumably once that first school opens a new article will be created for that building, as a child of this article, per WP:HS.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have this project actually do something, like opening a 'projected' Grade 12 school in 2016 or two before including it in an encyclopedia. Either rename this article "Project X" or delete or merge it, but please do not call it a school. A school is a place of learning, a building under construction is not. I have been unable to find sources that confirm that a school under this project exists already and has students on seats in classrooms at Grade 12. Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be your own personal definition of notabililty, which once again fixates on the word 'school' in their title, rather that what they are actually doing and the sources backing it up.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If "press reports are about the project and not about the school itself" then the project is notable. Wikipedia's notability policies do not require specific organisational milestones - building a school or teaching students - before we can report on a project or startup; policies require substantial coverage in independent sources. In this case I'm reluctant to say keep because it looks a bit spammy, but I firmly disagree with Kudpung's interpretation of notability policy. Whatever next? Delete Airbus A350 because nobody's flown on one yet? bobrayner (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all in favor of search results. lifebaka++ 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green-backed[edit]

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

Partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also partial title match lists:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as nominator. Please see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-necked where the problems with this kind of page getting in between the reader and the better-suited search results were discussed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I was notified on my talk because I had prodded this a year ago. These are partial title matches, and would be best deleted to just allow readers to find what they are actually looking for. These are not topics by the same name. Btw, when I prodded it was deprodded pointing to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 29#Valid dabs? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 39#White-chinned and similar redirects. Those discussions will inform this debate, and show that the issue is not restricted to "green" prefixes, which makes this batch nomination somewhat incomplete. A general RfC might be useful. Fences&Windows 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely incomplete here. I figured I'd batch the various colors by color as I come across them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since this is a batch nomination. If I remember only that a bird is called the green throated something on a guided nature walk, and I come home and look for it, this is how I am going to find it. I can't see any utility to the reader by deleting it, and I only see benefit by enabling someone to find what they are looking for. I see no utility to listing all the articles with the word "green" in them which is what we mean by partial search terms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are properly deleted, you are going to find it on the search results which will be returned instead of the partial title match list. Wikipedia enabled someone to find what they were searching for before. All the articles with the word "green-backed" in them is also what we mean by partial title matches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as perfectly logical means of differentiating between species with similar names. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument to change the current WP:PTM guidelines, which disagree that this "perfectly logical" means is encyclopedic. The search results page is a better means. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: my first instinct was to Keep, but then I looked into it: Green-backed lists two birds. Type "Green bac" in the search box and you find ten, such as Green-backed Woodpecker, created 2007 and not renamed. So these lists are, from a sample of one, likely to be very incomplete (more so than ordinary dab pages, where someone creating a new article for a "John Smith" will be forced to recognise that there's a dab situation and may, with luck, add their new "John Smith (whatever)" to the dab page). But I wonder if there's some scope for a single page listing "phrases used to describe birds" using a lot of {{lookfrom}} links, which would then show both articles and redirects in a neat format? (Might be worth including all 3 variants - hyphen, space, single word, for thoroughness) PamD (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Such adjectival uses are better served with the search function. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most, except redirect Green-backed to Greenback (a disambiguation page) and rename Green-winged to Greenwing (disambiguation). I propose the first redirect because "green-backed" is a plausible misspelling of "Greenback" and I propose the second because my research indicates that a couple of these birds (the teal and the macaw) are sometimes called simply "greenwing." I agree with the nominator regarding the others. --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a partial-title match list in the way of the reader is bad, but putting an unmatched disambiguation page in their way would be worse. If done, I hope that {{intitle}} or {{lookfrom}} would be added to the target page help the readers get to the proper search results. If there are birds simply called "greenwing" (if that has more than WP:OR to support it), they should be disambiguated on Greenwing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is what the search box is for. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic Wax[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Written like an advertisement by a WP:COI, probably someone associated with the company, so fails per WP:SPAM. Only two of the sources given--the NYT and the Nation--could qualify as WP:RS, but in both instances the mentions are trivial, so there actually are no WP:RS. Finally, the user with the WP:COI problem should probably be blocked for violating the WP:COI username policy. Qworty (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence at the moment on this one, but I would note that the only valid reason presented for deletion is notability. The other problems identified can be fixed by editing, which I had already done a bit of before this nom, and the username is actually in compliance with policy and not relevant to this conversation anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm gonna go with weak delete. All I found by way of WP:RS that wasn't already in use was this Italian article [25] that mentions them and nothing more. I say weak delete because its possible there are more African sources for this content since most of their artists are African, and Africa is under-represented on the web. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - GNEWS archives seems to carry enough mentions of them in WP:RS (e.g. BBC, NYT, Boston Herald, AllAfrica.com), some of it behind paywalls, for this to just about scrape through on the grounds of news coverage. Borkificator (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per this entry in Billboard (magazine) ("Dakar Dreaming - Nomadic Wax brings Senegalese Hip-hop to the US" [26] and the 65 results found in a search of "Nomadic Wax' site:.edu (that is, US university sites, which they are frequently invited to) [27] - for example, they sponsored an internship at the the U. of Massachusetts [28]. Novickas (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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